>Detailed & convoluted, yes. Conclusive, no. It is interesting that engines dramatically improved after these patents expired. What you deem convoluted is simp

>Detailed & convoluted, yes. Conclusive, no. It is interesting that engines dramatically improved after these patents expired. What you deem convoluted is simply covering all bases and countering any arguments before they come up. All the improvements that came after were from the "expansive" use of steam. There was no way Watt's patent could have prevented the expansive use of steam because it covered the "contractive" use of steam, specifically the condenser. The condenser is an additional, separate mechanism that is completely unneeded for expansive use of steam. The improved steam machines simply could not have infringed Watt's patents. That in itself is pretty conclusive. However, engines improving after the patents expiring is interesting, but not for the reasons you may think. The authors provide data showing why improvement stalled in those years (number of deaths caused by use of expansive steam). But Watt's patent covered the most efficient use of steam known until then, and that forced people to start looking for workarounds, which led to Trevithick's breakthrough. So the interesting thing is that Watt's patents actually spurred research into expansive steam, leading indirectly to the improvement in steam engines. This is interesting, because "invention by forced workarounds" has long been a post-facto rationalization of patents. > Wouldn't society benefit more from inventors inventing instead of dealing with legal issues? The flip side is, wouldn't society benefit even more if people rewarding inventors and spent their efforts making their own inventions instead of simply copying others'? All human economic activity, since the earliest days of barter, depends on quid pro quo: People perceive value in something, and in return they offer compensation. There is absolutely no reason this should not extend to intellectual creations. Innovation may be in the domain of the creator, but it doesn't happen in a vacuum. Even the most prolific creator has to eat. If creators can't reap the benefits of the value provided by their creations, nobody's going to be innovating. All IP law essentially is based around this. > If someone create a derivative work from my work, then I'm happy. I trust that collaborative environments with such a feedback loop creates more global innovation. That's your prerogative, but not everyone feels this way. More often than not, in my experience, people will take your work and give nothing in return. I've seen it happen to popular open source reduced to begging for donations (I've donated to some), and I've seen it happen to small startups that got blatantly ripped off by the big guys and went under (I worked for one). Heck, when people fantasize about a world without IP, I just ask them to explain the state of innovation in China. Yes, there are many nuanced reasons for it, but it boils down to the fact that people will not give back unless they have to. Unfortunately, there are more predatory people in the world than collaborative, and as with all laws, that is why we have IP laws.