Yes, but patented products and ideas are only as good as the originator's willingness to defend it. The concept that the inventor deserves the spoils is fine but somewhat naive. The reality is that almost everything we have is an invention that is built on the shoulders of someone else.

The inventor of the stand-up walk-in tub (a fellow Canadian, Ladimer Kowalchuk from Ituna, SK) decided NOT to patent his design and as a result a large niche industry has developed from his idea. He, himself and his family still run their own stand-up tub business (Safety Bath) and do quite well but he was not willing to take it to a higher level or willing to apply for the patent because of the rigors of getting and defending it. Other companies with more financial and marketing resources have also profited deeply from his invention. Could he have been richer if he had sought and enforced his patent? Perhaps, but by letting it go "wild" the idea took a wider hold and the entire walk-in tub industry grew from it.

The other side of the coin is the inventor of intermittent windshield wiper, Robert Kearns. He got his patent but it took many years and lawsuits to finally get his just rewards from Ford/Chrysler.

Anecdotal evidence of a few patents does not rule the day because the U.S. Patent Office alone has issued over 6 million patents. I'm not even talking about other countries. U.S. companies collectively have owned millions of patents on which they rely to be what they are. The following companies would not exist in their current form if it weren't for our patent system: Intel, Qualcomm, IBM, Apple, SAP, Microsoft, and many others. U.S. pharmaceutical companies would not research and make new drugs if it weren't for the U.S. patent system. Heck, they wouldn't even exist.

The reality is that an invention in the USA is determined by the Patent Office and by the U.S. court system, not by commentary on the Internet. If you want to prove or disprove a particular invention, we have this system setup for people to go through the proper channels. It's naive to think you can make up your own Internet definition of what you think an invention is. Well, you can, but it won't matter for capitalization purposes in the real world.

Not sure exactly what I said but I obviously touched a nerve. I said absolutely NOTHING or made NO assertion about patents being proved or defined on the internet either by direct words or by implication. Don't let your imagination run wild on you. My anecdotes are simply there to say there are pluses and minus for those willing to choose to patent their products.

My comment about the "naiviety of the inventor should get the spoils" refers to the fact that a patent system is only partially effective especially in the current world wide trade. In a perfect world, where everyone respects another's rights and obeys every law on the planet is nice but it simply doesn't exist -- hence my use of the word naive.

Quite often a invention is copied in part or nearly in whole in another country outside the US where it would be very expensive to try to reach out and defend their patent from a foreign interest. In some Asian countries, for example, 90% or better of all software is pirated and/or reverse engineered or directly copied with no compensation given to the originators. These software companies sometimes do go after the cheaters but it can be expensive and often impractical with the differences in culture, language and laws.

Patent protection is only as good as those who will respect it kind of like a locked door keeps out only the honest people. And there are fewer and fewer honest people out there. A lot of people/companies will push and exceed the boundaries of law regardless of whatever patent protection is in place.

I would agree that because of a patent system protecting the rights of the inventor is a great incentive for innovation but to assert that research would not exist without it is a bit strong. Inventions and new ideas are quite often born out of a perceived need for something different or better and are only brought to market because of a perceived financial benefit to the inventor. Sooner or later someone else is going to get a brainstorm and build upon previous inventions. If and when that invention relies too much prior ideas, we have a legal system(s) in place to have it debated and adjudicated.