Re:Like anything else ... (Score 2, Interesting)

If I read the law correctly, simple variations on an existing patent should not be patentable. Here is the relevant passage, in party of the first part phraseology (from U.S. Code, Title 35, Ch. 10, Sect. 103): "A patent may not be obtained ... if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains." Even though it is in legalese, the intent seems clear: an invention must be novel to be patented. That language, if applied rigorously, would set an extremely high standard for patentability. When did the patent office begin approving patents for simple knockoffs? Patent applications made with the intent to stifle competition should be denied. Multiple applications for essentially the same invention should be denied. Patents which have not been exercised by introduction to the marketplace should be turned over to the public domain. It should be the obligation of the patent holder to demonstrate that the patented invention was produced for the market, although this will have to be designed to balance the interests and responsibilities of individual and small company inventors versus those of large corporations. The main public benefit of patents now seems to be to spur corporate investment in R&D. Would the public be better served by direct tax credits for R&D and a phaseout of patents?