> Without patents, there are no incentives for publicly stating your methodology. That can't be true. There are about 50,000 new phds a year, all of their diss

> Without patents, there are no incentives for publicly stating your methodology. That can't be true. There are about 50,000 new phds a year, all of their dissertations are public. Those are all required to be novel, right? so clearly, it's not the only incentive. There are many incentives, recognition, fame, and funding to name a few. > Patents increase the sharing of information, they do not reduce it. Ok, sure, but reading the patent creates a minefield for any future work. Was it your idea or did you read it in a book? Some people can answer this question remarkably well, remembering the source for every concept they employ. If on the other hand, you're not good at this, reading patents is very dangerous. Triple damages encourages not reading patents. > The second point is covered by prior art. No, an infringing idea after publication of a patent is by definition not prior art. It can be a completely independent discovery, but it's still infringing. Again, independent discovery seems to indicate, to me anyway, it's obvious.