[Chaebixi]

Trade secrets are worse because then the design never gets disclosed, and has to be rediscovered. Time limited patents are a good and explicit trade off between the personal benefit of the inventor and the benefit of society.

> Michael Hanack (the materials chemist) used a different strategy: he would not patent anything so his inventions could be used my any market participant, and he would consult for all of them.

That won't work if the invention is easily copied. Chemistry is tricky and there's probably plenty of money to be made in consulting in it. A lot of industries aren't like that.

[HarryHirsch]

Trade secrets are worse because then the design never gets disclosed, and has to be rediscovered

In the sciences you'll notice that simultaneous discoveries are nothing unusual, once the groundwork is laid the idea hangs in the air, you do nothing but reach out and catch it. The Zuse example is just another instance.

In the case of mathematics and computing, the invention can be copied easily by development costs are minimal as well. These is no compelling reason why someone should reap disproportionate rewards from a government-supported artificial monopoly. Progress suffers and the economy as well.

[Chaebixi]

> In the case of mathematics and computing, the invention can be copied easily by development costs are minimal as well. These is no compelling reason why someone should reap disproportionate rewards from a government-supported artificial monopoly. Progress suffers and the economy as well.

Yes there is: because of the effort of invention. The effort required to copy is irrelevant. Also, by arguing against patents, you're basically arguing that Intel and the like should get a huge payday at the expense of this guy's efforts.

Patents only last for 20 years [1], and it's not like progress stops when they're in force. Have some patience.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent