It's not a good idea. Ideally rights should be for as long as the life of the inventor. Instead of a cut-off time, I've heard people espouse a system of valuation and, in some cases, taxation, so that over time a patent becomes increasingly affordable for others to buy out and put into the public domain.
>Ideally rights should be for as long as the life of the inventor.
I'm fairly pro patent, but I disagree. Unlike copyright where there is an almost unlimited amount of expression available, some inventions are just something people would independently come up with.
Nobody would organically and independently come up with Mickey Mouse or Sherlock Holmes.
But different teams would have invented the BJT transistor if Bardeen, et al. never existed.
Patents length acknowledges that by not giving exclusive rights forever. It's more of a challenge prize than a pure ownership of the idea indefinitely.
I had an idea similar to this where when filing for a patent you include an estimate of R&D costs. If the patent is awarded then its lifetime is related to how long it takes to get a reasonable payout on the R&D investment.
This way big pharmaceuticals put a couple million into a new drug and they get to profit for a few years. An Apple engineer makes slide to unlock in a couple days and given the number of iphones sold the patent is over quite quickly.
i have to disagree to your statement, which misses foundation.
First copyright is always a life long idea, but the focus of patents have always been to incentivice long term research efforts that have budget constraint by having a mid-term monopoly
problem today: a lot of trivial design-patents and even patents that are used in the wars between big corps.
as one of my advisor board state - screw that patent, we cannot defend it anyway
Behind a lot of those patents there is no research in the sense but it rather came out of "usual" engineering.
i think that the proof of non-trivial has to be a part of the application and is better suited than discussion about life-time - because patents could still have a strong point in basic-research
Problem is what to do with the already existing bogus patents - any suggestions?
