Yes that is a fair point and I should be flogged for referencing numbers so poorly supported. However, that does not make them wrong. A thorough review of all t

Yes that is a fair point and I should be flogged for referencing numbers so poorly supported. However, that does not make them wrong. A thorough review of all the evidence shows that: a) Watt stopped adding inventions after 1782, and b) when his patent expired in 1804 horsepower of new engines rose immediately and significantly. After securing his patents he left the engine unchanged for some 22 years. It should also be said that Watt's patent was an exception: his connections to power allowed his patent to be extended for 24 years by parliament. However the "regular" patent system impeded Watt. He had to use the inefficient sun and planet gear instead of a crank because Pickard had patented it. Pickard patented the crank: a device we have evidence of from 5BC. Watt used his less efficient gear system until the patent expired, and then immediately switched. Pickard had offered to license the crank in exchange for the condenser, but Watt spent a year inventing his gears instead. Fact: a number of significant improvements were made to steam engines by people other than Watt. Fact: the patent system prevented anyone but Watt from selling steam engines because he had a patent for the condenser, without which all other inventions were pointless. Fact: Watt did not license any of these improvements, nor allow anyone to license his patent, nor make any further improvements of his own. Fact: only when Watt's patent expired were these technologies incorporated into products (and immediately so). Fact: Steam engine technology was stopped for 22 years by the patent system. The numbers are not in question. The question is, "without patents, would any of the inventions have happened at all?" Watt basically bankrupted himself developing the condenser to the extent that he took a job for a couple of years. It then got investment in exchange for a share of the patent. Would anyone have invested in his idea without patent protection? I do not have any proof one way or the other, only evidence that thousands of businesses are started every year without support of a patent. The issue is of great concern to HN readers: we make a living through our intellectual property. Watt made a ton of money because he could patent his idea. Without patent protection, he would have had to compete in manufacturing, service, or rapid innovation. With patent protection, he could have one good idea and hit the jackpot. Although I may personally like the idea of making a million off an idea, I believe that the world is better served by allowing ideas to be unpatentable, and instead requiring competition in execution.