Yeah, a patent should only be granted if the patent officer manages to build a working prototype using it as a guide. A competing patent officer should only get the title of the patent and try the same, to check for obviousness.

I partially agree. It's not feasible to expect the patent examiner to reduce a technology to practice, primarily because a lot of physical technology requires very expensive equipment and some skill to master (chemical vapor deposition chambers for thin films for instance). The ownus should be on the applicant. However, it is certainly feasible for an inventor to demonstrate a working prototype for each claim. Based on the number of rediculous awarded patents I've reviewed over the years, I imagine simply requiring demonstration will probably reduce the number of patent applications by 90%.

This requirment would have many benefits. However, a down side is that not all entities have the resources to build their inventions. If I come up with a new idea for an efficient rocket engine, I would have to license the idea to a SpaceX, etc, to get it built. But it would be difficult to approach a SpaceX and secure a license without first getting a patent.

You will need the resources to build it eventually. You can easily protect yourself from an individual entity stealing your ideas using a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).

Not always, but in general, a proof of concept prototype (built in parts, at small scale, or simulated) will be an order of magnitude cheaper than a production unit.

Would a white paper for a free energy generator be accepted to a respected peer reviewed journal? Probably not, but there are tons of these truely worthless granted patents out there diluting the system. I strongly believe we need inventors to prove their claims via demonstration, one way or another.

Drug research seems more like an infrastructure thing more than a profit thing. Fund the research publicly. Academic competition is enough to ensure research is effective.

Drug manufacture however seems more like a profit thing. Open up the results for companies to make generics. Profit motive will ensure efficient delivery.

Drugs are rarely (if ever?) developed by academics, and cost a huge amount. Low estimates for bringing a new drug to market are around $500M+:

They found that companies took an average of 7.3 years to win FDA approval, at a median cost of $648 million. Only two drugs had research costs over $1 billion. Adding in the cost of capital at 7 percent increased the median research and development cost to $757 million—less than a third of the Tufts estimate.[1]

[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/03/drug-pric...

I agree that the pharmaceutical industry spends a lot researching drugs. And so does the government eg [1].

In the situation of an imaginary future where patents are scrapped, pharmaceutical companies will be unlikely to continue to invest in the current fashion. I took GP to suggest that this would be an issue. I was trying to make the point that tax payers through something like NIH grants would be to take up the slack. Making the research available patent free so that generics can be manufactured.

Obviously this wouldn't be a simple transition and incredibly unlikely. But its an interesting intellectual exercise to think about.

[1](https://www.statnews.com/2018/02/12/nih-funding-drug-develop...)

You also need to add the costs of the losers.

Indeed, the next paragraph in that article discusses that.