Intellectual property rights, copyright protection and trademarking are a reality, but to what extent is patent law, for example, actually beneficial? Ultimately, is it reasonable for companies to own an [i]idea[/i]? Companies are able to make millions of dollars simply by having massive patent portfolios that they license to companies that actually make use of the associated ideas. The idea behind patents is to protect inventors and innovators and their work from being copied however companies applying for incredibly broad patents and being able to make profits from the innovations of others is something different entirely. In fact, it can be argued that such patents actually stalls the development of ideas and is therefore counter-productive. As it stands, patent law rewards the wrong people. As technology evolves, more and more grey areas in patent law emerge. [url=http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/business-it/australian-software-company-in-us-appeals-court-over-patents-20130212-2e9kh.html]This case[/url], in which a company is claiming the right to a number of patents covering "a computerised system for exchanging financial obligations" (the article's terminology, ie not from the actual patent) illustrates this. If the company wins, it could set an interesting/worrying precedent. Fairly broad wording, right? Basically, it could allow this company to own a very broad idea and, as a result, profit off of others' later innovation. The point of view of Facebook, Dell and Google is summarised in the article linked: [quote]They wrote that "bare-bones patents" such as Alice's do not innovate enough on their own to deserve patent protection. "The real work comes later, when others undertake the innovative task of developing concrete applications," they wrote.[/quote] However, broad and even abstract patents like this already exist. For example, Amazon owns a patent related to one-click online purchases - so companies that are not licensed by Amazon have to use two or more clicks per purchase in their online stores. At one point, Amazon settled with a company which sued them because they owned a patent that describes: [quote]a computer-implemented method and system utilizing a distributed network for the recommendation of goods and/or services to potential customers based on a potential customer’s selection of goods and/or services and a database of previous customer purchasing history.[/quote] That is, Amazon had to pay Cendant Publishing to recommend books to customers. There are many, many patents like this. So clearly this sort of thing is allowed under patent law. You [i]can[/i] patent extremely broad and abstract ideas. Is this reasonable? Or does patent law need to be revised? Moving beyond patents, even copyright law can be detrimental. There are instances of copyright law being used to censor work; there are instances of very obscure connections between works of art being used to turn a profit for somebody, and there is legislation that makes the mere [i]possession[/i] of software that has [i]the potential[/i] to infringe on copyright. I could go on, but I think the point has been made. In my opinion, that you can own an idea that allows you to profit on later (and mostly unrelated) inventions or innovations is ridiculous. This stalls technological development and, in the case of broader intellectual property and copyright rights, can compromise artistic freedom (which is important too, right guys??). I'm not saying that we should do away with patents, copyright, trademarking and the like entirely, but given how much the types of patents etc being filed have changed, it surely follows that these laws should at least be revised. Er, excuse me for thinking aloud a bit here. What do you think? Should you be able to own an idea and what is your stance on the things I've brought up?