It looks like you wish to see a more just and sustainable economy... que no? Check out www.dualcurrency.com and look at the patent for a transaction system to capture and distribute currently wasted wealth. Feedback and help welcome. joel

The patent law is a property law - for big and little alike. But if you are big you can do more with your property than if you are little.

And one third of what market is that? If you patent something new, you'd start off with all the market and never have any rights!

Patent law does a better job, in my opinion, than criminal justice system we currently have. It's a rather remarkable system that manages to process 2000+ new patents a week.

Your overly simplifing it's challenges, but I like the idea of linking it's protection against market penetration of technologies that actually make to market and turn a profit.

It's an interesting concept, the best case for it is the befuddled judgement against Microsoft that, again, IMHO, didn't do what it needed to do to protect consumers and the industry at larger from monopolistic practices of MS.

The intellectual property system is definetaly broken. For starters the time provision is absolete. In the internet era technology patents should be limited to a year or two. Also there should be a process for patents to enter public domain if its in the public interest. In Military applications the inventer may not even use or work on his own invention, I think this happened to the guy that invented the lazer. Also a convicted monopolist should be penalized by having all their assets put in the public domain.

I empathize with your frustrations, but the solution has some problems. A common problem with today's system is that patents are often not used to bring a product to market. It is used as currency to trap unwitting offenders later. A better solution would be where a patent could be taken away if after 3 years there is no meaningful attempt to use the idea to deliver a product to market. This subjective variable, 'meaningful', would be determined by a judge induced by someone who wants to use the patent. It's the use it or lose it system.

I know the fellow who, with his father, invented the "self-cooling beer can." (Pull the tab and 30 seconds later the beer is ice cold.) They got a patent, made the rounds of beverage companies to sell the idea. The company executives loved it, but refused to buy it- the reasons?

"We don't think it will help us sell more beer"

"If we do think it will help us sell more beer, we'll just wait until the patent runs out in 20 years."

Limiting patents to a year or two only helps the big guys.

Market penetration is too vague a measure. I think that equates to "bad law".

I would prefer a change to the patent law that ties to "level of investment". If you come up with an idea, scribble it on a bar napkin. Then pay $200 to an attorney to file a patent. You should not get the patent.

Patents are there to protect financial investment in ideas. Or the cost it takes to bring an idea to market. The purpose is not to curtail competition.

Just my thoughts.

So, how do we make this a reality?