The paper describes how commonly cited "genius" inventions didn't come out of nowhere and are instead based on research and build-up of knowledge by multiple independent groups of inventors. Yet patents are often granted to one party as if they came up with something truly remarkable and original all on their own. This kills innovation and further research because the other parties cannot continue to improve on the work after a vital patent has been granted to someone.
This paper doesn't really advocate for total abolition, but that seems to me like an attempt at not coming across as too radical.
The paper describes how commonly cited "genius" inventions didn't come out of nowhere and are instead based on research and build-up of knowledge by multiple independent groups of inventors. Yet patents are often granted to one party as if they came up with something truly remarkable and original all on their own. This kills innovation and further research because the other parties cannot continue to improve on the work after a vital patent has been granted to someone.
This paper doesn't really advocate for total abolition, but that seems to me like an attempt at not coming across as too radical.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1856610