Once again, we see ThinkSolveDo not actually reading or responding to what I wrote, and making statements that make it clear he hasn’t bothered to think about what we’re talking about, but just reacts emotionally.

Let’s look through his points.

Once again we see Mike explaining to us why only the rich and wealthy have a right to profit from ideas. Oh, how I too wish to live in Mike’s world where SLAVE labor serves the few.

Um. Not much to respond to here, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, so…

A Patent is the rights one gets for showing the world HOW TO do something. It is a right that one entity or person works for and pays for and expects to own the innovation. The US Patent system has worked well for many years and only now is being questioned because companies and countries are looking for ways to get innovation for free. That is not right…

First of all, it’s true that a patent should show someone how to do something, but many of them these days describe something so obvious no one needs to be told how to do it. As for the US patent system “working well”… there are a couple of problems with that statement.

First, you have nothing to compare it to. How do you know thing scouldn’t be better?

Second, there have been a number of changes to the patent system in the last 25 years that have clearly made the system worse. I suggest you learn a bit of hte history.

The person who invents the idea should own it. And this is common sense. Incentives produce results. Take away the incentives and you will not see results. No one will patent anything if the innovation needs to be donated to someone else.

Once again, I suggest you learn your history. There’s plenty of incentive to innovate without patents. It’s called *profits from the market*. There are a number of cases where it’s clear patents delayed innovation. In fact, one clear case is one that patent supporters love to support: the steam engine. The market was slow to develop until *after* James Watt’s patents expired. And, after that, as opposed to your claim that people would just steal the idea, Watt’s business thrived — despite the competition. And that was a case where everyone else had many years (during the patent protection) to copy his idea.

Mike’s arguments are as stupid as saying, “the person who wrote the play should not get any money! Only the person who produces the play should.” Complete stupidity…

Um. That shows a COMPLETE misunderstanding of what I’m saying. I’m wondering if you’re making these mistakes on purpose, or if you have a real problem in understanding. At no point do I ever say that anyone shouldn’t get money. All I’m saying is that the value is in bringing a product to market successfully — and the rewards system in place (called “the market”) is already there to reward it.

Mike… try to focus on learning how to create and less on how to pilfer others creations. You will look less like a pig and more like a decent person.

Again, an emotionally wrong reaction. I’m not talking about pilfering creations. I’m talking about innovating.