[WalterBright]

I agree that patents are unrealistic in the modern world.

Frankly, it seems that most (nearly all) patents have only a trivial amount of money invested to create the idea, other than what the patent lawyer costs. For example, "playing checkers --- with a computer" patents. Ending all patents would not slow down innovation at all.

There is one exception, drug patenting, where billions are spent developing a drug and getting it approved.

[WalterBright]

Maybe a reasonable solution would be a patent filer would have to pay a registration fee of $1 million if the patent is approved.

So, you might say, only big business could afford to file patents. Not exactly, $1m is well within the reach of a startup.

But even for big business, they're not going to file 1000 patents at a cost of a billion dollars.

Patent trolling would become an untenable business plan.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/microsoft-still...

[pxeger1]

Did I read this wrong, or do you think drug patenting is a good thing? Why?

[jeremyjh]

> Why?

Did you read this ?

> where billions are spent developing a drug and getting it approved

[gknoy]

I'm not the parent, but I think patents for drugs are a good thing. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but the ease of copying them (once a chemical is known) combined with the cost of finding the drugs seem to fit very well with the spirit of patents, where new knowledge development is rewarded with a temporary monopoly.

I do grant that the practice of patenting small incremental changes to existing patented things ("this drug, with slower release!") does seem a bit questionable, but overall it still seems like a good thing. I'd be interested in hearing your argument for why it's not a good fit.

[CheezeIt]

Do you understand why we have a patent system?