> The topic seems to be one of those where on average the strength of people's opinions is inversely proportional to how much they've studied the problem. For

> The topic seems to be one of those where on average the strength of people's opinions is inversely proportional to how much they've studied the problem. For me, at least, the experience has been the reverse: I used to think the patent system was basically sound with only a few problems, but the more I've read on the history of patents, the more I've realised how broken it is, and has been for a long time. For example, in the 18th century James Watt used his patent to stymie development of high-pressure steam engines. In the 19th century, there was costly patent litigation over barbed wire, which benefitted the economy not one jot. Nor did the sewing machine patent thicket and ensuing litigation benefit the consumer. A patent is supposed to teach people how to make an invention. But in the 20th century, Frank Whittle wrote his patent application for the turbojet several years before he had actually made one. His patent couldn't teach people how to make a turbojet, because at the time of writing he didn't know himself! -- it took Whittle several years of hard engineering before he built a working jet engine.