The patent system doesn't apply to things that are "plain", though this word is a bit broad, so it isn't clear if you mean it the way I take you to mean it. Further, I didn't say that this was the justification for it, I said that this was one of the advantages of it, and thus, even if you disagree with the advantage, that doesn't ipso facto, make the system broken.
>When there is a whole big system, of various obvious costs, and you do not even know the net effect is positive, the sensible thing is to stop doing it (probably by phasing out), until something proves otherwise.
Your argument also applies to government, in fact, from an economic perspective, government has a clear negative return (to the tune of $70 Trillion in the USA roughly).
Get rid of the patent system by getting rid of government, and you'll have my agreement.
If you think it is ok to have government but not a patent system, then there's contradiction in your positions.
>When there is a whole big system, of various obvious costs, and you do not even know the net effect is positive, the sensible thing is to stop doing it (probably by phasing out), until something proves otherwise.
Your argument also applies to government, in fact, from an economic perspective, government has a clear negative return (to the tune of $70 Trillion in the USA roughly).
Get rid of the patent system by getting rid of government, and you'll have my agreement.
If you think it is ok to have government but not a patent system, then there's contradiction in your positions.