The problem arises when the patents last much longer than the "innovation cycle" in an industry. As software takes over the world, we're seeing cycle times go down in many fields, but patent laws aren't keeping up with technological reality.

Are there studies that back up your claim? Or is this propaganda from the entrenched powers?

There are studies that show patents slow down & harm innovation.

http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/do-patents-encourage-o...

Indeed, patents are good for the lawyers & entrenched players. That doesn't sound innovative to me.

To pick one area I'm somewhat familiar with, a lot of the patents in digital-audio synthesis were initially reasonable, in my opinion. Furthermore, the system largely "worked" as it was supposed to to incentivize innovation and ensure that commercializers of technology paid some royalties to those developing it. A research group like Stanford's CCRMA would develop a new synthesis method, patent it, and license the patent to a commercializer such as Yamaha, who put it in their synthesizers and paid a royalty. Without patents, there would be a strong incentive to do this monetization via keeping things secret instead, rather than openly publishing them somewhere that Yamaha could just read.

The part where it starts seeming unreasonable is when a 15-year-old synthesis method, which is by that time ancient and textbook-standard material, is still patented.

After the time period the patent / copy rights should be released to the public domain so that everyone may benefit from cheap economy of scale production.

The only reason I could think you feel this way is that it is all you've known. In most cases a couple of years worth of profits from monopoly should suffice. In reality it depends on how much was spent on the initial innovation.

One tricky issue is also the lead time to market. In the synthesis example, Yamaha came out with a synth within ~2 years of licensing the patent. But in some areas (like medicine) it can be common for it to take 5-10 years for a product to come out, in which case a 5-year patent would be worthless, because it would expire before you can sell anything.

In reality it depends on how much was spent on the initial innovation [and how long it takes to reap the return on that investment].

It seems to me that you want it to be less for your convenience, and no other factor.

Hard.

My gut feeling on iOS vs Symbian (running on similar hardware) is that if it's so easy to copy something like that, then iOS is only being propped up by the law anyway. It's probably not doing society much good overall.

Maybe a route forward is to allow competition, but require that if hardware is licensed by something like the GPL, then some nominal fee would have to be paid to the rights holder. Society would have to vote on what that should be, and it would be across the board, perhaps 5% to 25%, something on the level of capital gains or VAT? It would be kind of like generic drugs, where other companies would have a hard time competing because typical profits margins might be in the 15% range, so they couldn’t afford to advertise. Otherwise my feeling now is that we’re actively encouraging monopolies and it just feels really anti-entrepreneurial.

Also, if iPhone's form factor is actually better, then it would only benefit customers if other companies would adopt it.

Some things are hard to copy though and would take time to reproduce by others (if ever).

And how do you know it would result in a net loss for consumers? I guess by assuming that iPhone's form factor would not get invented, if others were allowed to copy it. But how do you know that it wouldn't? And what about all the other things that would get invented, because people were allowed to reverse engineer stuff or develop other, currently patent protected technologies?

true for those looking to copy or re-implement something they see from others. For programmers looking to innovate or do something completely new and need a way to fund it - completely the opposite. Patents provide the programmer support in convincing investors to fork over their cash since smart investors recognize the R&D will even in the worst case scenario (e.g. startup goes bankrupt) result in a patent which can be transferable or monetized.

This is a perfect example. The 80+ issued patents and 53+ pending patents have provided the original investors a return on their investments. The engineers got funded and got to work on what they wanted, while the investors got rewarded. Both are satisfied and will likely continue on again.

It's a complete first man advantage, anyone coming after that has to deal with the fact that 130+ patents already exist. Sure, some of these are probably extremely valid, but seriously, 130+?

So we've got some revolutionary new technique that allows real-time visualisation direct onto the user's retina, your brain can't distinguish it from reality..

Yeah, but the user is seeing something that's not physically present? Got that one covered. Pay up.