You are taking away options from the creator, most notably the option to sell his stuff. I am removing the option to sell rights, not stuff. In other words I a

You are taking away options from the creator, most notably the option to sell his stuff. I am removing the option to sell rights, not stuff. In other words I am calling for the rights to be statutory and non-transferable. Removing the option of rights being wholly transferred to another party is the removal of the option to remove all future options and therefore, in absolute terms, can actually have the practical effect of giving inventors more access to other options over the lifetime of their patent. This desire to interfere in trade is very odd. Given that patents are an issued right to interfere in trade, I see nothing odd in interfering in the right to trade a right to interfere in trade. [edit] I completely agree that this creates a different set of messyness, but I think that patents by their very nature create messyness and that this set of messyness is smaller and more dealable with than the current insanity. Also, I would have to say I am far from convinced of the general need for patents at all, although I would definitely concede that they have been useful in some specific instances.