It is a reasonable idea, but sometimes inventors run into problems obtaining capital and nothing gets done for years. Trying to license a patent can also be fraught with obstacles; many companies won't license anything created outside the company (NIH not invented here), companies that are interested don't have the expertise or the market to develop the invention, etc., etc..Even so, it does merit some discussion. Maybe a bigger problem concerns the protection of IP on an international level. The EU won't protect anything published before the application of the patent.

The two year limit on an unused patent was arbitrary and may be a bit short. But a good idea should not be prevented from development by a dumb or suppressive company policy or the financial incapability of the patent holder. If competition is a good idea after production it should also be worthwhile before development. If the patent holder, within a reasonable time, cannot get the idea into production then competition should be introduced to force the issue.

100% in agreement with you on this one. I have had many ideas that hinged on other pieces that people have never done anything with but refuse, for whatever reason, to release the patent rights. It is always the attorneys that give the big "NO".

Yes it is a good idea. Part of the reason for so many unused patents is that firms do not realise that their patents may have value to others. The patent itself may be of little use to the firm that invented it (the invention may have been 'accidental') and therefore they just sit on it unaware that others might like to use it. Some companies are now realising this and are offering unwanted patents for sale through patent auction websites. Also, it may be worth checking if a firm has paid up its patent maintenance fees. If not the patent may be available for use by others.

I agreed, but the details would be tricky. Perhaps there thould be a "half life" where, after 5 years, if my new idea is only a bit like the old one, I should keep at least MOST of the rights. Some "violations" have a very tangental connection. I like the concept.

Often times patents are created to prevent competing companies from modifying an active patent slightly to get around the active patent. If you have a filter made specifically to produce an old guitar sound, why should you have to modifying it slightly to do the same job? The inactive patent just keeps the core patent from becoming corrupted by less then innovative entrepreneurs.

Also, if the inventor is waiting for certain aspects of technology to catch up or to become cost effective to implement their patent, then they should be paid royalties for using their patents before they are capable of doing so themselves.

For what other reason is there for a patent? The inventor had to pay over $5,000 to patent their idea, they should be reimbursed fairly.

Anyone wanting to use a patent can contact the owner of the patent and arrange to pay reasonable royalties. That is the purpose of a patent. Almost any patent can be gotten around with just a bit of engineering, so I'm not sure what benefit it is to make inactive patents public domain.

A patent is only good for 17 years anyway. I think that's a short-enough time limit.