[b1ur]

I personally think that patents are necessary to promote independent (i.e. non-corporate) innovation. If an individual has a novel idea they should be entitled to some of the money that a corporation makes using that idea.

Of course, the US patent system is pretty deeply flawed. I participated in a study involving patent infringement allegations between two big companies, and my opinion was consistently "Why was this patent approved?"

[coldpie]

> If an individual has a novel idea they should be entitled to some of the money that a corporation makes using that idea.

Absolutely not. Suppose I, Mr Independent Inventor, come up with some idea and convince the patent office to grant me a patent, and then proceed to do exactly nothing with it. Five years later, Ms Employed Engineer working at ABC Corp comes up with the same idea, and they manage to turn it into a product, which becomes successful. I contributed nothing to their product. Why on Earth am I owed any money for their work?

[colejohnson66]

You’re twisting the GP’s comment. They never said you should be able to sit on it; They said, if you invent it, you should get something. If it’s invented by two different people with no relation or knowledge of each other, the winner takes all approach is wrong.

> Why on Earth am I owed any money for their work?

And what about when ABC Corp steals Mr. Independent Inventor’s idea and makes millions on it? How is that fair?

[loeg]

> If it’s invented by two different people with no relation or knowledge of each other, the winner takes all approach is wrong.

Unfortunately, the US patent system is winner take all; i.e., wrong.