My solution tp the patent problem

I'd prefer that we simply did away with patents. Does McDonald's need a patent to sell hamburgers? Does Toyota need to patent the idea of a hybrid to sell the Prius? Of course not! In a free market, the guy who best meets the customer's needs wins! A patent cannot do that; if anything, patents and the monopoly they enforce usually result in a customer being forced to pay way too much for something, or to not have any choices at all in a market...neither of which would happen in a truly free market.

But there is so much investment in this lunatic system that I'd never get my way. So as a compromise, this is what I propose:

1. First of all, there would be separate utility patent "sublclasses" for drugs/therapeutics, and for traditional utility patents. The reason for this is that drugs truly deserve special consideration as they are much harder/more expensive to develop.
2. Regular utility patents would work as follows: you get 10 years on the patent, not the ridiculous 20 they allow now. For the first 5 years, you and you alone can decide what to do with it; you can sit on it, or license it, or develop/manufacture/sell with it. If you haven't done anything within 5 years, it's revoked forever. On the DAY 5 years rolls around, you are now compelled to license it to anyone who makes a request, and you must license it for no more than 7% of revenues (or equivalent).
3. For drugs, the system is as follows: you get 4 years from the date of filing to request a phase I FDA trial, you get 5 years to complete trails, and the DAY you get FDA approval, you get 8 years to sell/license/do whatever. If you miss any of the milestones, your patent is gone. But, the time limits given are completely reasonable for anyone diligently trying to pursue a real drug. It also forces companies to do a little more front end work, so we don't end up with Vioxx type fiascos where the drug Co.s only realize their mistake late in the game and then scurry to hide it. It's better to be forced to figure out troubles early on that to waste money on human trials and then cover your ass when it all goes wrong.

I'm sure all the patent attorneys, corporatists, and other vermin would find these solutions absolutely shocking. They'd never be able to pay for their misdeeds if innovators had only 7 or 8 years to play the monopoly game. Prices would rise, they'd say. Well, of course they'd rise, that's what happens regardless when you're allowed a damned monopoly! But since the monopolistic period would be so short, monopolists would have an incentive to not overdo it with the price hikes because consumers would rapidly ditch them once and for all as soon as the artifical scarcity imposed by the monopoly is busted.

If instead, we truly found a way for people to exchange their innovations in a free marketplace, innovation, science, and technology would flourish like never before. And in that scenario, EVERYONE wins, not just hte monopolist. I invite your ideas here too...though I'm not interested in reading defenses of the current system (the literature is saturated with the self-serving apologists of the current system).