[dkl]

> And if we don't want people to invent smart phones, cures for cancer and televisions, we should eliminate patents.

I reject this. Software, which is a component of all of the things you mention, didn't always have patents, and it flourished without them.

[stretchwithme]

I think patents make sense when it is our mutual self interest to have them. If something is more abundant without them, then it makes no sense to patent that thing.

The statement you are rejecting was a general one. There can and should be exceptions based upon the evidence.

Which suggests we should actually vary the length of patents experimentally to obtain the evidence.

[stretchwithme]

Even within the software realm, it makes sense that some things be patentable and others not.

For example, if you create translation software that requires a lot of resources to develop, patents probably makes sense.

But in other things, patents are an obstacle. For example, technologies that connect people and organizations that must be agreed upon to work and where establishing a common language is more valuable than could be obtained by simple adoption by an individual.

Think HTML and HTTP and TCP/IP. Similar technologies that were controlled by companies suffered because they were controlled by companies. Their attempts to charge a toll impaired adoption. The incentives lead companies to not connect, to differentiate and not agree.

So when people point to the Internet as an example of why government should be making technology choices, what they are really pointing to is an example of inappropriate patenting that could only be overcome by an entity with more interest in seeing the thing succeed than in charging a toll.

In other words, precisely the set of interests people would have if a patent did not apply in this situation.