[throwaway485]

I don't think you should be downvoted for suggesting this. I have wondered if it makes sense to adjust the amount of 'research hours' to how long it would take a competitor to produce the same result, and protect a patent for that length of time. To me 5 year seems arbitrary, and the rate at which people are innovating seems to get faster and faster. 5 years used to sound reasonable, but may be exceedingly unfair at today's technological pace.

So then you look at things like, 'well has this patent protected the innovation to get it to market during its lifetime?' Maybe it should be re-evaluated every year to determine if the patent is serving its purpose, or simply protecting no marketable product.

Maybe we should look at the value of the product being created and once that product has earned x-wealth the patent is ended?

I will admit I'm in the camp of "patents are bad -> period", but I was surprised to see your submission at the bottom here. I don't think you're far off.

[jsdeveloper]

non-patent holder can use those 5 year to improve the product in parallel (in shadow, without commercialization), so once those 5 year completes they can compete with the patent holders evolved product after 5 year. it do not stops innovation, neither prolong human progression for too long.