Patent Pending
Most patent offices around the world will state the reason for their existence around the ``fact'' that patents encourage innovation. That a strong patent system encourages innovation is far from clear [LPFthoughts]
Traditionally, scientists involved in research share their discoveries as soon as they are made, sometimes sooner. Other researchers verify or disprove these finding or are influenced by them or improve on them, thus advancing our knowledge. The possibility of a patent, however, encourages researchers to keep their work secret, for fear of someone else beating them to the patent office. Scientists must work in increasing isolation, walking ever more treacherous fields of patents, trying to ensure their work is not based on or similar to someone else's patented findings. With over 3 millions patents in place, and the flow of patents between countries becoming more and more liquid and the length of patents already over twenty years, this situation is not improving. There is less sharing as scientists must look over their shoulder for fear of their colleague or a ``rival'' lab getting a patent, and hence licensing fees and wealth. [USlicensing revenues]
Think of where physics would be if you had to get a license from Einstein before basing work on his Special Theory of Relativity(tm), or astronomy if Kepler and Galileo had patented their findings and methods. In a field I am more familiar with, computers, it is currently impossible to write free software to create or view GIF images (in Canada, too) due to patents on the compression algorithm they use [Unisys]; it is next to impossible for anyone to write an MPEG (used to compress video) decoder or encoder, due to patents; writers of free encryption software must walk a carefully drawn line around RSA (and other) patents on their encryption algorithms; Amazon has successfully gotten patents on "one-click shopping" and "affiliate programs"; Dell computer has many patents ``protecting'' their concept of delivering custom-built PCs. The medicine industry is the most profitable industry ever thanks to twenty-year patents on their drugs, with international protection. [on human genomepatents]
Originally, patents could only be obtained on a specific piece of machinery and were intended to encourage inventors to disclose the plans for their inventions (a requirement for a patent). This allowed others the possibility of improving on their designs; patents have traditionally been quite narrow. The patent system is mutating into nothing more than a legally enforced monopoly on ideas and is damaging science. Increasingly tied to the WTO, the World Intellectual Property Organization is making these concerns over patents an increasingly international endeavor. International ``law'' is beginning to influence Canada's patenting system [WTOruling against Canada]
The entire idea of granting a monopoly on an idea just because you happened to think of it first is, well, dumb. ``increasing innovation'' is touted as the very reason for patents to exist, yet this claim is by no means clear. Claiming that private research dollars will vanish along with shortened patent terms is nonsense; consumers will constantly demand new products and these can't be made without new discoveries. Patent terms need to be drastically reduced and the manner patents are obtained needs to be re-worked, most especially for software patents. The patenting system is no longer serving its goal of encouraging innovation; rewarding people for doing research in secret without cooperating with fellow researchers is not a healthy way to encourage science.