One of the big problems is the generic concept of patents.
The same 75 year protection is giving to software, drugs and automobile parts. The idea being, to give the inventor an exclusive period in which they can develop and profit from their creativity. It fosters creativity by giving incentive to be creative. Come up with something new, and it is yours to market for 75 years. Good luck.
The problem is 75 years is an unrealistic number by today's standards, especially for items like software and drugs. That number was pulled out of a hat in the pre-industrial age, when getting a product to market and making a profit could take DECADES. Fine for a new brake system on a car, but 100% useless for software and drugs.
Software moves at an incredible pace, something I'm sure everyone here is aware. What software, or components, are you using today that you were using 5, 10, 15 or 20 years ago? Imaging if Apple (or Xerox) had patented the WIMP GUI back in 1986, what you'd be using now. Software patents need to either be eliminated or reduced to something like 5 years with a 1-time renewal of another 5 years as an option.
Drugs are in the same boat. The diseases they are effective for can become resistant over time. Look at the problem that S. Africa is having right now with super drug-resistant TB! What good are TB medications developed 25 - 50 years ago going to be when their patents expire? Yes, drugs cost a lot to develop. But many also have an effectiveness life that is less than the patent life. Non-device medical patents need to be shortened to 10-15 years, with a one time 10-year extension. Or, we need to have a "compulsory licensing" scheme similar to what is available in certain music arenas. The best approach may be both: a 15-year exclusivity patent, followed by a 10-year compulsory licensing patent, followed by expiration.
we have to admit there is a problem, two problems really
The same 75 year protection is giving to software, drugs and automobile parts. The idea being, to give the inventor an exclusive period in which they can develop and profit from their creativity. It fosters creativity by giving incentive to be creative. Come up with something new, and it is yours to market for 75 years. Good luck.
The problem is 75 years is an unrealistic number by today's standards, especially for items like software and drugs. That number was pulled out of a hat in the pre-industrial age, when getting a product to market and making a profit could take DECADES. Fine for a new brake system on a car, but 100% useless for software and drugs.
Software moves at an incredible pace, something I'm sure everyone here is aware. What software, or components, are you using today that you were using 5, 10, 15 or 20 years ago? Imaging if Apple (or Xerox) had patented the WIMP GUI back in 1986, what you'd be using now. Software patents need to either be eliminated or reduced to something like 5 years with a 1-time renewal of another 5 years as an option.
Drugs are in the same boat. The diseases they are effective for can become resistant over time. Look at the problem that S. Africa is having right now with super drug-resistant TB! What good are TB medications developed 25 - 50 years ago going to be when their patents expire? Yes, drugs cost a lot to develop. But many also have an effectiveness life that is less than the patent life. Non-device medical patents need to be shortened to 10-15 years, with a one time 10-year extension. Or, we need to have a "compulsory licensing" scheme similar to what is available in certain music arenas. The best approach may be both: a 15-year exclusivity patent, followed by a 10-year compulsory licensing patent, followed by expiration.