That's all good but in the absence of patents, you'd have to resort to trade secrets.
One of the biggest reasons for patents was the public disclosure. If they are trade secrets instead, the inventor does not get any legal defense once the secrets are reverse engineered.
So I think it's a tough problem and society should err on the side of benefits for the inventor.
You have to resort to trade secrets anyway. There's never going to be a legal system that is dynamic enough to move with the whims of a collaborative technology team.
> So I think it's a tough problem and society should err on the
> side of benefits for the inventor.
I tried to explain above - supporting patents doesn't err on behalf of the inventor. It errs against them. Patents granted to non-inventors and used to hit inventors over the head with.
There's a great book I recommend, "Against Intellectual Monopoly". It goes back to the original patent on the steam engine, and what a bad deal for innovation and innovators that was, and proceeds from there.
One of the biggest reasons for patents was the public disclosure. If they are trade secrets instead, the inventor does not get any legal defense once the secrets are reverse engineered.
So I think it's a tough problem and society should err on the side of benefits for the inventor.
Software patents should be limited to 1 year :)