[hsk]

I think that's still not the point. A popular website's trade secret is not necessarily its source code. You can copy facebook's code from soup to nuts but you are not going to be nearly as successful.

On the other hand, imagine someone found out a way to cure cancer. If he just releases his formula, then there's a very good chance that he will not make any money off of it at all. Without patent protection, he will probably hoard the discovery for years while building a company of his own to sell the drug. Finally, the drugs will be available, and yet the public will still have no knowledge of how to develop the drug, improve it even further, or apply it to other diseases.

I'm not personally a big fan of patents. I'm merely addressing your comments, which I see to be somewhat irrelevant.

[chris_wot]

I don't see a problem here. If a patent is granted for the cure for cancer, then the products will most likely be very expensive because you have a monopoly on the cure. Poor people will not be able to buy the cure, so how has that helped them?

[hsk]

I think that's missing the point again. The point of a patent is so that the underlying technology is public. A patent system in fact does exactly what you suggest, which is to create a monopoly for a certain period of time so that the inventor can profit. But the existence of a patent implies that the formula for the cancer drug is out, and so other companies can use that to potentially create better versions or apply it to other areas.

[chris_wot]

In reality, what would happen without a patent is that someone would investigate the cure, work out how it is done, then make it better.