These are exactly the problems that patents were created for to solve!
Yet they don't fulfill this purpose in the slightest bit. Besides, I don't care if some people suddenly stop innovating because there is no longer any money to be made - which is nonsense, anyways. It's the same as the ever so often repeated lie that you cannot make money with free music or software. It's simply the system's dynamics that change.
That's ordinary business.
"Ordinary business" is both everything that is wrong with the patent system as well as quite a few other things on this planet. As I said, citing the status quo to argue for it is a circular argument.
But there certainly was a need why the patent system was created
Yes, there was a need for monopolists to have even more tools at their disposal to control the market. As I said multiple times, patents were never meant to protect small businesses, or help the small, clever man with a clever idea. It's pretty much the same as saying that copyright was made for artists - it's plain wrong.
Patents have always profited those with power and influence on the system, those with much money to file law suits, and those who are already rich. While there might be some success stories of small men or businesses, those are the exception, and by no means the rule.
We'd go back into a much more secretive world.
I disagree. We'd be in a much more cooperative world, since monopolizing knowledge is no longer possible. It would no longer be feasible to work on problems alone in the hope of making money from the eventual monopoly on the solution, as cooperation increases the benefits for everyone. Incremental development based on each others discoveries could lead to rapid advancement of technology, instead of the - excuse my language - clusterfuck of a stalemate we currently have.
Patents have always profited those with power and influence on the system, those with much money to file law suits, and those who are already rich. While there might be some success stories of small men or businesses, those are the exception, and by no means the rule.
I disagree. We'd be in a much more cooperative world, since monopolizing knowledge is no longer possible. It would no longer be feasible to work on problems alone in the hope of making money from the eventual monopoly on the solution, as cooperation increases the benefits for everyone. Incremental development based on each others discoveries could lead to rapid advancement of technology, instead of the - excuse my language - clusterfuck of a stalemate we currently have.