For there to be money in 'inventing stuff' -- at least in the form of an incentive -- potential inventors have to believe there's enough possibility of there be

For there to be money in 'inventing stuff' -- at least in the form of an incentive -- potential inventors have to believe there's enough possibility of there being money in 'inventing stuff' that 'inventing stuff' is worthwhile. It's entirely possible to imagine a patent system that would work against the goals of lowering the cost of living and making progress 'go up'; such a system would be one in which: - patent infringement carries heavy penalties when successfully prosecuted - individual patent licenses must be negotiated individually; there's nothing resembling a compulsory licensing scheme - researching the existing body of patents is difficult, expensive, and often inconclusive (bonus points: in addition to upfront cost of researching, actually having done the research potentially opens you to steeper penalties than would be the case had you not done the research) - so many patents have been granted that in many fields it is hard to produce a product without using patented technology in some way (either by infringement or by licensing) - maintaining ownership of a patent carries minimal ongoing expense, carries no obligation to put the patent to use (in licensing or in direct production) - there's essentially no economically significant 'time-out' or statute of limitations on filing charges for past infringement I leave as exercise to the reader deriving optimal strategies under such a system for inventors, patent-holding firms, and manufacturers. Whether the system we have resembles the system sketched above depends greatly upon who you ask, what field with which they happen to have the most experience, their previous professional background, and from whence their current livelihood derives.