[theltrj]

It is interesting to see the electronics/computer science side of the patent debate. On this side of the argument there is a desire for a short duration, very narrowly tailored patents (for some that is even too much) because technology moves so fast. On the biomedical/genetics research side of the argument there is a desire for long lasting, broadly tailored patents because it takes so long to develop medicine, do clinical trials, get FDA approval, etc.

What I find most interesting is that I believe most (not all) members of this side of the debate 1) don't know there is another side and/or 2) don't care about the needs of the other side. This author makes good points, but lacks proper context I believe.

Statements like '20 years was set in the days of horse and carts, does it make sense in the modern age?' are great for pandering to an already complicit audience. However, the point is that for some industries 20 years makes sense, and for some of them 20 years isn't long enough.

I'd be willing to bet Myriad Genetics or Monsanto thinks 20 years is not enough.