The fact that people, these days, tend to sell patents to companies that collect them and turn a profit by licensing those patents to others is again, another building block in capital, not really a bad thing.
People have a right to make money from their inventions and they have a right to sell that right to others, usually making both a profit.
No, there is no irony, we learned a long time ago, and continually have it proven that a market that is unregulated by an external power, is a bad thing. Or did you make a bundle in the market crash of 2008?It's ironic we have a patent system as well as anti-trust laws here in the US. Innovation occurs from competition, not from monopolistic stagnation (which patents often induce.)
That hypothetical will be a very lengthy and politically poisoned legal battle involving everyone from the Christian Right to the Far Left to overturn the current policy. It won't happen any time soon.You'd be surprised. Much of the human genome is patented, so patenting a genetically-modified human being could be a problem in the no-too-distant future.
I do look forward to the company that tries to sue someone for having a cancer gene, though.
Scaling back what can be patented to the late 80's level, before those damned mice were patented, can only be a good thing. The time limit is debatable.I do agree with the idea of scaling back what can be patented. It would also be much more sane to limit any given patent to a 5-year maximum.
Good luck with getting people to listen to an argument that includes that. It'd be an argument louder and more vitriolic than the Single Payer Health Care argument.I do not agree that abolishing patents should not be considered, though.