Because the answer is pretty simple : how many examples of such scenario can you provide ? Or to be more specific, how many post-80′s example is it possible to provide ?

The reality is simple and as bad as it can be : it never happens.
Protecting an invention with a patent is out of reach for an individual. Not only is it complex and expensive process (for an individual, not a corporation), the patent is also worthless if not used afterwards to sue competitors and collateral victims. So the real cost must include legal war support during many years.

Moreover, if it is a real invention, clearly described and useful, it will get circumvented, legally. Get a lawyer, he will find subtle language variations, which will make the invention non applicable to minor changes.

In fact, whether you want to create or avoid a patent, the most important step is always the same : get a lawyer, a good one, which knows how to “cheat” the system : over-extending claims, obscure wording which avoids describing the invention (so that its description is useless for humanity), and so on. That’s why claims on “obvious common little things” are so much more valuable than complex and focused inventions.
Where is the genius inventor in this process ? no where.

The reality is that there is no way for a lone inventor to get protected for its invention. At best, he will be able to sell its invention for a penny to a much more capable financial organisation. At worst, he will be left exhausted and penniless.

The car industry is a joke. The internal combustion engine? It is a joke. You can’t see it because you made a deal with the devil long ago so that you could drive without being crushed by the guilt of recognizing you are giving little girls asthma. So you overlook the tailpipe.

Everything in cars has been speeds and feeds. Incremental improvement.

If Apple comes out with a car that is carved out of a block of aluminum so it is very light and strong, and powered by hundreds of iPhone batteries for 250 km range, and with so few parts they sell profitably at $9999 for a sedan, then the existing car companies would never stop suing them.

This guy “patents” seems to be saying that Google invented the iPhone and Apple should be happy to get out of Google’s way and let them keep innovating.

By law, patents are supposed to be original and unobvious. The last patent officer to stick to those ideas despite politics and pressure was Thomas Jefferson. Once a patent office becomes a government bureaucracy it is under pressure to grant monopolies unless there is a very good and obvious reason not to. So we have the blinking cursor patent, the one click patent, and on and on.

I do think Apple is behaving a little differently from the other telephone device companies though. It is not interested in cross-licensing its fundamental UI patents ascribed to the touch interface and architecture of the iPhone (and iPad) as it believes these are key to product differentiation and represent the DNA of the company. That is the jewel the others wanted oct they realized the iPhone design and interface was such a game-changer and that is why Apple preferred to pay Nokia rather than cross-license. Apple isn’t using its key patents as a means to leverage income from others. Apple is using those patents to protect its products. That won’t be the case with the Nortel trove. Those patents are the cards with which it will trade licenses for other foundational technologies with its competitors.

Think of it as high stakes Poker. New entrants are possible but the incumbents are, in effect, the house.

Suppose I invent a new method of compressing music, resulting in obviously higher fidelity in files half the size. It might take me years of work to try dozens of variations on my original idea before it clicks. And nobody will use my work until it gets a broad base of acceptance from “content providers,” middlemen such as Amazon’s store, and manufacturers of hardware or software players. I might have the talent, insight and perspicacity to create a dramatically better standard but I could not possibly reap any rewards from it without patent protection.
.
Are you proposing that I should just donate my time to your, and others’ greater enjoyment of music? Are you willing to subsidize my invention work without any promise that I’ll actually create something? Where’s the meat in these claims that we’ll all be better off without patents?

http://blog.dgwbirch.com/?p=453

What really strikes me is this last sentence :
“you forget how today’s giants toppled their elders : By imagining the unimaginable, patenting the unpatented.”

This couldn’t be worse. No, today’s giant have not just “patented the unpatented”, they have envisioned and well executed a good product, invention or concept, which makes them an essential part of today’s life.

This last sentence is so far away from one of yours :
“you could invent a new process to temper steel that would result in taller, safer buildings. In patenting your idea, you’d earn a bit for yourself and encourage others to raise the bar.”

Hell, this is exactly what has changed today : it’s not necessary to invent anything, nor to make the world a better place with your invention : just patent the unpatented, if possible an obvious principle, described in an obscure language (and don’t be shy if it is already daily used by the industry, the wording may distract reviewers and jurists). Do not disclose nor execute anything, hide the patent as long as necessary to make sure as many victims as possible can be blackmailed. And now, out of nowhere, attack the stupid working class which is busy trying to execute a complex invention with your corsairs … sorry, lawyers.

It’s correct to say that a lot of money “will always attract a number of parasites”. Yes but that’s no good reason to let the parasites overtake their host. In fact, any “robust organism” can only remain healthy as long as its defense system can successfully protect it from those parasites. Otherwise, it just dies.

By this reformette the USA are catching up and give their bureau the money to be strong. How will react the other countries for example China?