I don't think reform's actually that hard - with unbiased intentions (whose lobbyist is that?). To be honest, it would be hard to fuck things up any worse than

I don't think reform's actually that hard - with unbiased intentions (whose lobbyist is that?). To be honest, it would be hard to fuck things up any worse than they already are. Technically competent people (in the field of the patent) should be performing the reviews, they should be given the time that they need to do so. I believe there is a shared commercial justification for both patents and copyright: protection against your work being co-opted as soon as it's produced provides a period in which production costs can be recuperated and profits made. This is a significant motivating factor in the production of works. I do not believe that the law currently provides adequate coverage against the production of similar works. Look at the situation with Facebook or Blizzard (WOW), rapidly copying novel new features from smaller competitors to prevent them from ever getting any hold in the market. Or with Zynga, et al wholescale copying games with total impunity. (If a period of even 3 years protection was provided for simple yet novel mechanics, there would be a far greater potential for successful titles from non-major development houses.) I would put protection for all forms of work under a single unifying law. The period of coverage should given consideration to the quality and the novelty of the work in question, and provide the justification behind the decision (if this justification is proven to be unreasonable or incorrect the protection should be voided). Exemptions must be provided for breaches demonstrably in the public good.