>it's easy for a cluster of bad patents to block progress indefinitely
you meant like from 1959 to 1987. Sure is indefinitely. Imagine, if the world had ENDED in 1988 or 1989, then the world never would have gotten a patent-free laser.
/s - nothing else to reply to you. get some perspective before throwing words like indefinitely around. I remember when I was 12 I thought like 4 years ago was an eternity ago, I poo-poo'd books published more than 2 or at the most 3 years ago and I thought everything was instantly out of date.
turns out societies actually operate on a different timescale from 12 year-olds.
but otherwise everything you wrote makes sense. and if the world were to end in the next 24 months, then a lot of patent-encumbered technologies simply will NEVER be brought to market by certain companies, due to patents and patents alone.
I absolutely do believe that. The only thing is that I plan on the world existing longer than this time-frame - but if not, you're totally right and a lot of technology is being held back. only time will tell which of us is right.
So 1979 + 20 = 1999 - 1959 = 40 years which is twice the nominal 20 year patent terms.
Critically the original patent was overturned based on a private notebook from 1957. So, the public gained NOTHING from these patents because someone else had already published and others where actually creating the product and bringing it to market, but no based on a notebook which nobody saw suddenly the world changes.
I do benefit from having a precision component in my mouse that cost its manufacturer pennies. Which is the end game of the patent process.
So it's just not a great example. Overturned or not, the public has come out very strongly ahead.
Sketches in notebooks don't help me. Inventors going through the patent process do.
It's that simple.
Note: We changed to a first to file in part to avoid this issue. But, now someone else can publish or even sell something, then after reading it you can submit a patent using their idea which is arguably far worse.
I am not sure that's working as intended in any way shape or form, considering the invention was "Gould's name for the device was first introduced to the public in a conference presentation in 1959"