[creativename]

Well that's good and well for an individual or a small group, but the classic case for patents is in things like pharmaceuticals. A patent protects someone from reverse-engineering something that a company may have spent years perfecting for hundred of millions of dollars.

[mbell]

> but the classic case for patents is in things like pharmaceuticals

That is also the classic case for patent abuse. Take a drug that works, tack on some non-active atoms somewhere, change the name, patent it, jack up the prices on the old drug when the patent is about to expire to push buyers to your new monopoly.

[danielweber]

Please explain how customers are locked into the "new monopoly." If Screwitall-A can now be made generically and works just as well as the newly made and patented Screwitall-B, customers are totally free to switch to -A if they care about the cost.

(Customers usually don't care about cost, which is certainly a problem for holding down prices, but this doesn't seem anything like "patent abuse.")

[mbell]

All the money is in prescription drugs which isn't a 'free market' (speaking about the US here). I can't just order my generic prescription from whomever I want nor do I have unilateral control over what my doctor prescribes. The doctor may well have his/her own agenda.

[ktizo]

newly made and patented Screwitall-B

I assume this is the new trade name for a variation on Viagra.

[ktizo]

Pharmaceuticals are also the classic case for an existing massive public and charity funded research and development network for absolutely vital medicine, that the industry is not willing to do because the existing model is completely and utterly broken from a public health perspective.