> Because people will horde their inventions to themselves and reduce the rate of progression of civilisation?
I bet someone else who isn't silly like that will rediscover likely within twenty years of the hypothetical hoarder.
Also, you can hoard it under the current regime anyway:
> WD-40's formula is a trade secret, and has not changed over the years, according to historian Iris Engstrand. To avoid disclosing its composition, the product was not patented in 1953, and the window of opportunity for patenting it has long since closed.
Within 20 years, sure. But extrapolate that for any invention which has significant commercial value, and you've got a problem. This why patents exist in the first place.
> Within 20 years, sure. But extrapolate that for any invention which has significant commercial value, and you've got a problem. This why patents exist in the first place.
I didn't think of that. I don't think the situation is quite so cut and dry though.
Imagine how many patents like one click [1][2] we can avoid if there simply was no patent.
I am not convinced that patents have an overwhelmingly positive effect on society at this point in history. We have to consider that communication (both one to one and one to many) is a lot cheaper today than even two hundred years ago.
I think reasonable people should push for an end to all patents.
