A litigated court case? I'll have to think about that for a while. But the question you ask, are patents good for humankind in general, is yes. Transnational comparisons make it easy to see over the course of history that people invent more in countries that have secure rights for inventors. Patents can be overbroad (that's often what we talk about here on Hacker News) and patents can be for "prior art" already known to other workers (and that's what often gets litigated), but in general patents are a helpful public policy, along with copyrights (I think current United States copyright terms are much too long) and trademarks. Protection of legal rights in intellectual property encourages creative people to produce more intellectual property.
AFTER EDIT TO REPLY TO A QUESTION:
I was asked for a written account of transnational comparisons of intellectual property law and its effect on innovation. Here is one.
I have to go to a conference today for work, but perhaps other participants will join in with other comments on the international legal comparison issue. I have lived in two countries (the United States and Taiwan), and I lived in Taiwan before and after it developed intellectual property law enforcement, and it is plain to me that intellectual property rights encourage innovation (as contrasted with mere copying).
Do you have some evidence that inventions are a direct result of patents as opposed to socio-economic factors? I can see inventors appreciating recognition, but our system offers no other means of appreciation than patents. Patents are an example of degenerate capitalism, taking away your freedom.
As with all things, it's a mixed bag. See work by Mossoff, Zorina Khan, Petra Moser, etc for historical analysis of how patents influenced invention. It's not all good, but it's not all bad either. Will try to find some refernces when I'm not on a mobile device.
Having a free market, which allows the inventor to be first to market, is an inherent means of appreciating innovation. Compare and contrast with ideal communism. Patents are really just a way to strengthen and extend this inherent benefit.
1. We don't need to appreciate innovation by granting a monopoly. Math is thriving, even though none of that is eligible for patents.
2. You can be first to market by developing it secretly, perhaps collaborating with a larger company in exchange for royalties. That may not earn you as much money as a patent-monopoly, but that's fine.
In any case, if I independently invent something I should have full rights to pursue it however I want. That someone else 'thought of it first' is unrelated to my inventing it. That's the free world I wanna live in.
These inventions are built on our shared knowledge. Nobody deserves a patent for it. Inventors will invent anyway.
I'm mostly with you, I just wanted to point out what looked like a missed connection in the earlier statement.
That said, I'm not completely sold on whether patents are entirely useless. Certain types of invention seem to fit the model better than others.
Then again, I've heard of instances where patents, or something similar, could help innovation. One example is the business poaching I've heard of here, where someone starts exploring an idea as a service, only to shortly thereafter have a separate services company run with the idea, and put out a better executed version quicker than the originator because of more capital. At first glance that seems unfair to the originator but better for society, but if enough people think it's not worth entering the market because they'll be scooped, we all lose out on those ideas.
I don't have a solution, and I don't think the answer is simple.
One data point is not much but my uncle actually invented a new kind of sprinkler and patented it -- without patenting he couldn't seek a buyer cos anyone who got the plans could just go and manufacture it but this way he could enter into discussions without fear. So yes, patent law as it was originally intended is very useful.
There is a "little" difference, however, between these patent trolls and the guy tinkering sprinklers in his basement.
I'd like to read more in depth about these transnational comparisons on the effects of patent systems. Can you please point me towards a source which serves as a good starting point for further reading?
AFTER EDIT TO REPLY TO A QUESTION:
I was asked for a written account of transnational comparisons of intellectual property law and its effect on innovation. Here is one.
http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/law/intellectu...
I have to go to a conference today for work, but perhaps other participants will join in with other comments on the international legal comparison issue. I have lived in two countries (the United States and Taiwan), and I lived in Taiwan before and after it developed intellectual property law enforcement, and it is plain to me that intellectual property rights encourage innovation (as contrasted with mere copying).