Patent Length (Score 1)

It's not the length of the patent that is killing inventions, it's the obviousness of the patent. There are a lot of inventions that required years to become sucessful after a patent was granted on them. The intent of the life expectancy of the patent was to reward the inventor for his innovation during his lifetime. Some industries would never see a return on their investment if we limitted the life span of a patent. Drug companies have to patent their drugs before applying for FDA approval. If the drug makes it through the FDA approval process, which most do not, the drug company has two to three years to make their profit on the drug. The purpose of a patent is the granting of a limitted monopoly on the invention. Most inventions would not make it through the system without being out of date since it takes 3-4 years for a computer patent to make it through the system. The real problem is not the limitted monopoly granted by the patent office to the inventor. This incents the inventor to make new products. The real problem is criteria for patentability and the overwhelming number of submissions into the patent office. The system needs an overhaul and there must be a redefinition of obviousness. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_no n-obviousness. The patent office needs reform, but limitting the protections of the inventor isn't the right answer. Patents that declare a new use for a current invention should be invalidated. These inventions are called usage patents. They require no real thought. Just look for a different use of a current invention. Also, the fact you can patent a business process is bogus! If you eliminated business processes as patentable, then IBM would not have a case because most of these patents center around business processes. Eliminating business process patents,redefining obviousness, and limitting usage patents. are essential to the survival of the patent process.