> The patent system is not designed to encourage innovation. Hardly designed at all. The modern patent system goes to the 1600s when some boring king made some

> The patent system is not designed to encourage innovation. Hardly designed at all. The modern patent system goes to the 1600s when some boring king made some annoying promises that he had to compromise on: By the 16th century, the English Crown would habitually grant letters patent for monopolies to favoured persons (or people who were prepared to pay for them).[13] This power was used to raise money for the Crown, and was widely abused, as the Crown granted patents in respect of all sorts of common goods (salt, for example). Consequently, the Court began to limit the circumstances in which they could be granted. After public outcry, James I of England was forced to revoke all existing monopolies and declare that they were only to be used for "projects of new invention". This was incorporated into the Statute of Monopolies in which Parliament restricted the Crown's power explicitly so that the King could only issue letters patent to the inventors or introducers of original inventions for a fixed number of years. It also voided all existing monopolies and dispensations with [some] exception[s].... above quote background: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law and specifically http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/Generally%20inconvenient:%20the%201624%20Statute%20of%20Monopolies%20as%20political%20compromise.pdf http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/Generally%20inconvenient:%20... > The way to have true patent reform is to abolish patents That is an interesting idea, but I can't think of a way to make that work. Alternatively, I wrote a proposal where patents are divorced from science and technology, so that entrenched interests still have something: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openmanufacturing/vS4ju1VqXb0/jD_TZ8U47b4J https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openmanufacturing/vS4ju1VqXb...