Part of them problem is patents are "one size fits all". the one size being 20 years.
In pharmaceuticals, where getting a drug to market takes a decade and hundreds of millions in investments, it seems to work well enough. The investments wouldn't be made if the investor couldn't get return because all their hard work could just be copied.
But fast moving areas where R&D can literally happen in a garage, take months rather than years, and each step builds upon the ideas in previous steps it's not all clear how patents help, and there pretty clear examples where patents slow things down. Sewing machines were bedevilled by patent thicket, as were aircraft where in World War I the Americans were force to use European designs. The latter was a bizarre outcome given heavier than air flight was invented in the US by the Wright brothers - but them heavily patented by them.
The sewing machine thicket was "solved" by the formation of a monopoly - Singer. The Aircraft thicket was solved by the US government demanding all aircraft patents be forfeited to them. In both cases as soon as the problem created by patents was solved, innovation resumed.
It's possibly true that shorter patents would prove to be a net benefit in fast moving industries, but IMHO the evidence seems pretty clear when your innovation is likely to be superseded by something better in 5 years in a free flowing environment, being able to stall all R&D by 20 years is not at all helpful.
In pharmaceuticals, where getting a drug to market takes a decade and hundreds of millions in investments, it seems to work well enough. The investments wouldn't be made if the investor couldn't get return because all their hard work could just be copied.
But fast moving areas where R&D can literally happen in a garage, take months rather than years, and each step builds upon the ideas in previous steps it's not all clear how patents help, and there pretty clear examples where patents slow things down. Sewing machines were bedevilled by patent thicket, as were aircraft where in World War I the Americans were force to use European designs. The latter was a bizarre outcome given heavier than air flight was invented in the US by the Wright brothers - but them heavily patented by them.
The sewing machine thicket was "solved" by the formation of a monopoly - Singer. The Aircraft thicket was solved by the US government demanding all aircraft patents be forfeited to them. In both cases as soon as the problem created by patents was solved, innovation resumed.
It's possibly true that shorter patents would prove to be a net benefit in fast moving industries, but IMHO the evidence seems pretty clear when your innovation is likely to be superseded by something better in 5 years in a free flowing environment, being able to stall all R&D by 20 years is not at all helpful.