[halfdan]

> The commonly cited goal of giving monopolies to little inventors and helping the underdog is not a good justification; it doesn't create any value for the user/consumer and ensures they will have fewer choices in the marketplace.

The more common argument I hear is: Why would a company invest resources into research if there was no way to prevent a competitor from copying the result on day 1 of you selling a product?

[pjc50]

This doesn't really apply to software; how many features have the various social networks added that are copies of each other?

Conversely, the success of the web is entirely dependent on not hitting patent walls. We've all seen the problems of app stores with arbitrary rules and 30% taxes; if there had been a patent on, say "using images in a web browser", how much money would the holder have extracted and how many arbitrary rules would we have had to deal with?

(This nearly happened with GIF)

[halfdan]

Yup we're in agreement here. For software I agree that there is rarely if ever a point to have patents. That doesn't really counter my point above nor does it mean all patents are bad.

[jfabre]

IMO, this belief is not anchored in reality. What really happens is that no one cares about your idea and most people don't get it until you prove them that it really works. By then, you have the resources and the momentum. No one just starts investing time and money in something they don't actively think about themselves.

[tlocke]

My response to that is, why would a company invest in research if a patent troll could come along and put them out of business on day one?

[halfdan]

Patent trolls rarely kill a company. The want to settle pre-trial so they usually want some low (relatively speaking) $$$ amount. The gains from patented and protected research still far outweigh the risk of potentially paying a patent troll a few 100k.

[tlocke]

True, I should have put better. Maybe, 'Why would a company invest in research if a patent troll could come along and extort money from them from day one?'

[dave_sullivan]

Because they can make a great deal of money by making something that people want and competing with others for market share.

If your business cannot survive without a state enforced monopoly, it's a business that can't support itself and should not exist.

People often point to drug development to illustrate your point about the necessity of patents, but how about a world in which drug development is public and funded by government as well as industry participants and a "drug company" becomes more of a "drug manufacturer" making generics. Lower profits, but consumers benefit from more selection, and I would argue the science of drug discovery would move faster because it could focus on discovery more than legal bullshit. If your interest in medicine is literally only money, maybe you should try something else other than medicine. Medical innovation did not start with patents.