The trade-off question is whether these temporary monopolies encourage innovation and therefore improve overall utility. I think the balance right now is on "no

The trade-off question is whether these temporary monopolies encourage innovation and therefore improve overall utility. I think the balance right now is on "no," since the trade-off is predicated on the monopolist teaching in the patent how to implement the invention, and in it being novel and non-obvious. At this point, patents seem written explicitly to avoid teaching and to maximize footprint, and are very frequently not novel and/or obvious, yet the default judgment of the patent office is to be optimistic about applications. We basically need the courts to invalidate a ton of patents which are vague and obscure (don't teach the method in a useful way), and a ton more which are obvious (describe ways to use general-purpose tools in one of their intended uses, for example, like one-click) or not novel. That'd put a damper on it. Unless all east Texas courthouses are nuked from orbit, though, this probably won't happen. :-/