Did you know that Patents are a form of what Economists call Rent Seeking?

[Foghorn]

It is as the name implies.

n economics, rent-seeking is an attempt to obtain economic rent by manipulating the social or political environment in which economic activities occur, rather than by creating new wealth. One example is spending money on political lobbying in order to be given a share of wealth that has already been created. A famous example of rent-seeking is the limiting of access to lucrative occupations, as by medieval guilds or modern state certifications and licensures. People accused of rent seeking typically argue that they are indeed creating new wealth (or preventing the reduction of old wealth) by improving quality controls, guaranteeing that charlatans do not prey on a gullible public, and preventing bubbles.

Many current studies of rent-seeking focus on efforts to capture various monopoly privileges stemming from government regulation of a market. The term itself derives, however, from the far older practice of appropriating a portion of production by gaining ownership or control of land.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
@nokilleye version 2.0- I just want to show you why there is no growth in the economy. Even a world class Economist said that there will be no growth until 2050.

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-12-...mic-growth

That is right around the time that patents and their extensions expire.
@bcnu- Notice that you didn't explain your position. Why?

Because your level of Economics is in the kindergarten stage.

The reason why you don't understand me is because you are still in kindergarten level of thinking.

Notice that you use little baby insults like a 5 year old child. Does baby want a tootsie roll?
@nokilleye version 2.0- That is why I am a Libertarian. We are turning the market into something it was not designed to be. If we just left it alone then it would fix itself. Most Economists always go back to the Great Depression to point out why Capitalism failed. I believe in my heart that it was because of patents.

I haven't done enough research on it yet but because patents act like regulations. Then its safe to believe that patents and excessive regulation may have been the problem. Its like plumbing, if your sink is clogged up you don't replace the whole sink with something totally different. You try to find out what caused the clog then you clean it. That way you know what to do the next time it happens. Moving to Keynesian economics is replacing the whole sink with Communism.

[Aj]

who cares? I'll bet you are the type of person who goes to parties and people try to get away from you because you are so boring

[eagerContender129]

Um, okay. Where are we going with this? Am I supposed to oppose or support the practice of patents? All right then, I oppose the practice of patents and agree it is a scheme to extract wealth from an economy without constructive contribution. Do socialists and libertarians agree on that?


EDIT: Okay, I still don't really understand how we got here but I agree with that too; the economy will never improve for so long as its principle market is trading and speculation on abstract nonmaterial instruments that contribute nothing of constructive value. I don't think that applies exclusively to patents though. You know (you'll have to Google me on this, I'm citing from memory and probably wrong but) I heard our largest industry right now (or if not literally the largest, at least a shockingly large segment) is financial instruments. Financial instruments! That's the basis of our economy now; traders trading ownership of hypothetical values described on a piece of paper that represent nothing of material substance, with expectations of perpetually increasing value proportionate with aggregate total of transactions. A patent at least ostensibly represents some material article, physical process or idea of apparent useful function, so I guess ultimately I sort of disagree. The idea of the rent-seeking economy producing nothing positive is a pretty obvious call (and really, what kind of genuis do you have to be to predict nothing of constructive value will come from activity of no constructive value?) but it doesn't hinge exclusively on patents, it's the whole abstract intellectual ownership without constructive contribution ideal in all its myriad forms that is responsible.

[bcnu]

When you get to freshman Economics, after you get out of home-economics in high school, you will learn a lot of neat stuff about which absolutely NOBODY else cares.

Since you didn't actually ask a question, it's difficult to frame any sort of direct answer.