Nobody has ever had a good idea they didn’t steal.

There are no good original ideas. There are crap weird ideas that are incrementally built upon that lead to great ideas, but a fresh thought in isolation being any good does not happen. That is why IP rights are very wrong.

The first person to milk a cow was shunned by the community and turned into an outcast, it was a silly idea, practiced by a weirdo that led to a huge global industry. This fictional-fact^tm demonstrates that it is impossible to have a good idea, far easier to copy an idea and make it better and easiest of all to ridicule any mug having a go.

This is why our system of broad scale patents for “new technology” to protect “research investment” is patently ridiculous. Research and development needs to be protected from pilfering so it can make a profit and make it worthwhile investing in. This does not mean innovators should be given the ability to block further development until they have wrung as much profit as humanly possible from a small innovation. The innovation inevitably only enjoys its lofty, marketable status because it is  standing on the shoulders of the entire history of invention. By allowing intellectual property rights to be so dominant we are stifling further development and providing a cash cow that innovators do not deserve to milk. I see it as being akin to a prospector that struck gold in the 1800’s being allowed to stake a claim over the entire district and chip away at his leisure for the next 50 years. 

For some reason Apple, Monsanto and their ilk can make an incremental increase in development using the entire history of development to work with and patent it barring any further innovation in that sphere until done with it. As a species it is in our best interest to encourage innovations but instead we have managed to invent a system aimed at protecting R&D that does the opposite unless you can afford the best IP lawyers. Some companies suckling from innovation cash cows are so big they can now ride roughshod over elected governments in pursuit of protecting their profits.

So what is the answer? Companies can’t restrict the use of their patents but can charge a fee for use of their IP for profit. So the guy who milked the first cow would not be the only cow milker allowed to operate, however that weirdo would have a right to claim .02% of every Big M sold for the next 50 years. The licence fee would be determined by an independent subject expert estimating the contribution any licenced  IP has made to the product. If it is a blatant rip off you lose most of your profits to the inventor, if it is a significant improvement then you make money and the poor schlup who invented the original concept also gets a cut. Yeah I know this bit of my idea does need more work but that is just confirming my point, people will come along and improve on my concept. Heading in this direction would allow for innovation, encourage R&D and of course make heaps of work for lawyers and everybody loves lawyers taking a cut of the action…maybe we need to work on that?