I don’t have a good answer, but will try to summarize the background.
Patents have a number of purposes.
First, they’re intended to, ultimately, prevent technical knowledge from being lost. Many techniques in the ancient world were forgotten because they were held as trade secrets (guilds, mysteries, etc.) and the few who were allowed to know them died without passing on the knowledge. The temporary patent monopoly is meant to pry those secrets into the open (patents are published).
Second, they are meant to incent investment in technology research. A temporary monopoly on exploitation makes such investments more profitable.
Third (and this took me a long time to understand), patents encourage investment in technology exploitation (not just invention). Without patent protection against low-effort knock-offs, it can be really difficult for small firms to get funding.
Of course they have costs too. Not just the social costs of (temporary) monopoly—patents increase the legal and economic risk faced by people who have independently invented the same technology, potentially stifling innovation. These risks become worse as patents become easier to obtain (relaxed definitions of novelty, usefulness, and obviousness).
I don’t have a good answer, but will try to summarize the background.
Patents have a number of purposes.
First, they’re intended to, ultimately, prevent technical knowledge from being lost. Many techniques in the ancient world were forgotten because they were held as trade secrets (guilds, mysteries, etc.) and the few who were allowed to know them died without passing on the knowledge. The temporary patent monopoly is meant to pry those secrets into the open (patents are published).
Second, they are meant to incent investment in technology research. A temporary monopoly on exploitation makes such investments more profitable.
Third (and this took me a long time to understand), patents encourage investment in technology exploitation (not just invention). Without patent protection against low-effort knock-offs, it can be really difficult for small firms to get funding.
Of course they have costs too. Not just the social costs of (temporary) monopoly—patents increase the legal and economic risk faced by people who have independently invented the same technology, potentially stifling innovation. These risks become worse as patents become easier to obtain (relaxed definitions of novelty, usefulness, and obviousness).
Thank you for the clarifying response, which might aid in a successful rephrasing of the Question I’ve asked above. This line is particularly helpful:
Perhaps I will move this back to draft mode and reconsider.