Patent laws should be stronger in industries with a high "innovation-to-imitation cost ratio," like pharmaceuticals, and weaker in fields like software where costs are lower. One-size-fits-all Patent Law impedes innovation in some sectors.
In the early 2000s, an Oakland-based researcher envisioned using a cell phone to scan barcodes for instant product details. Excited, he quickly checked the patent database. To his surprise, similar ideas were already patented, despite seeming no more innovative than what he'd just dreamed up in the shower.
The problem is that the patent system doesn't require inventors to prove substantial effort or investment. According to economists, patents should be granted only when innovation costs far exceed imitation costs. In other words, patents should be granted only when the cost of creating something new is much higher than the cost of copying it.
Pharmaceuticals is a classic example. Developing a new drug might cost a billion dollars, while making copies afterward costs pennies. Patents protect innovators' investments by granting temporary monopolies, allowing recovery of research costs.
That said, actual patent law ignores this crucial balance between innovation and imitation. We give pharmaceutical products that cost $1 billion in research a 20-year patent, and one-click shopping gets the same 20-year patent. Adobe's vice president of intellectual property and litigation also had an interesting post on patent from the software perspective.