So if one person goes through a long and complex expensive process to yield a complex solution to a problem, and then I do a bit of work and spend far less capi

So if one person goes through a long and complex expensive process to yield a complex solution to a problem, and then I do a bit of work and spend far less capital and come up with a simpler and less expensive solution, I should get paid less? That reminds me of when they used to pay programmers by the K-loc of code they wrote. Inventions that are simpler, cheaper, and require less capital are worth more for that reason. One of the things that bothers me about some patent opponents is that their argument amounts to a devaluation of intelligence vs. brute force or slow plodding advancement. There really are "eureka" moments, and intelligence does matter. It is possible with intelligence to occasionally happen upon a brief compact insight that radically advances some art, and it is those brief compact insights that are worth the most.