[rudedogg]

> If I create something novel, I deserve a short term monopoly so I can compete against established corporations.

I agree, but I don't think the current patent system does this. I think the length of patents should be reduced dramatically, 5 years sounds reasonable.

It's crazy when you think about how patents last for 20 years, which doesn't really work with the current pace of technology IMO (as an example, the iPhone wasn't released until 2007). So you can't use anything Apple patented to make the ORIGINAL iPhone work until... 2027? That doesn't seem good for humanity to me.

If the lengths were reduced, and the requirements much more strict, I think the world would be a better place.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent

[PunchTornado]

Not gonna work. getting a new patent in genetic sequencing takes 10 years of research. then in 5 years you sell only a couple of products, especially if you're not the market leader. Then your competitor can use your idea while you invested billions in it.

Think about oxford nanopore and illumina for example. if illumina could just use their patents after 5 years and given that they already have 90% market share, they would be dead.

[ddxxdd]

Solution: allow a company or individual keep a patent up until (total assets - total liabilities) / (research costs) is greater than 15.

[egdod]

It’s not at all unheard of for a patent to take 5 years to be granted. Do those folks just lose out? Or do we base patent term on issue date instead of filing date? (NB: it used to be that way, and it invited all sorts of gamesmanship.)

[choward]

Maybe if they only lasted five years there wouldn't be as many applications since they wouldn't be as valuable so processing could be faster.