Username or EmailPassword
I am glad you are creating conversation about patent reform. Hopefully continued conversation can get tje snowball rolling.
There are however serious weaknesses with many of your proposals. I will just point out one. To reduce the holding term to 5 years would be a disaster. If anything they should extend the length. This allows costs to be amortized over longer periods. If an invention is very expensive to create and the window of profitability too short, there will be no incentive to develop the invention, thus defeating the whole purpose of the system.
I do agree with you that there needs to be some mechanism to ensure market availability of inventions. One of the worst practices of companies (especially fossil fuel industry) is to gain ownership of technologies and squirrel them away so no one can utilize them. We can't prevent the resell of patents, but we could require fair market value access.
I truely don't understand why you get voted down. Your post is not rude and merely expresses a different view.
Why do readers here downvote a reaction that is not in line with their belief?
I think part of the blame lies with the current moderation scheme. I've felt for a while that the instant gratification of seeing a post's score drop after being modded down is an incentive to abuse the system. I think if they were to change it so that, say, five downvotes for the same reason (troll or spam) are required to cause the score to decrement by one point, it would eliminate a lot of insightful posts being hidden by fanboy modding. The system should still hide the downvoted comment from the voter, since if you're downvoting them you obviously don't want to see the comment anymore.