For a lot of industries 20 years is an awfully long time to the point of complete irrelevance - and that "detailed information" is often vague enough to be unusable. Combine that with an overly-broad range of patent-able things and an overworked USPTO granting clearly invalid patents, and in practice (at least in the tech/software world) it's doing more harm than good.
Patents are no longer about protecting R&D investments. They have become more about patenting the vaguest concepts possible, in the hope of making a profit when someone else does an actual invention which somehow stumbles into your patents' wording.
Patents are always the tool of the moneyed and the lawyered, which is not the same thing as protecting R&D investment. There are exception, such as the guy who spent 12 years suing car companies over the windshield wiper, but that actually proves the rule because of time spent. It even apparently cause his marriage to break down. [1]
> Kearns sought $395 million in damages. He turned down a $30 million settlement offer in 1990 and took it to the jury, which awarded him $5.2 million; Ford agreed to pay $10.2 million rather than face another round of litigation.
Not that I don't agree with you, what makes Kearns' pursuit 'greedy'?
I’d argue the same applies to all patents; the world would be better off without them in general.
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/RT2%206-...
There is no such thing as a software patent.
There is no such thing as a rubber patent.
There is no such thing as a steel patent.
There is no such thing as an electricity patent
There is only ... a patent.
So either you think "well it's not a software patent, it's a patent that covers the application of some software" is a useful point to make, or you're being pedantic for pedantry's sake. To the former, I don't think that makes a difference to someone being sued by a patent troll.
Well no system can work that way - if judges in court were overworked and making invalid judgements, then the legal system would fail no matter what kind of laws you have and no matter what police does
An overworked Supreme Court does not lead to more Supreme Court decisions.
Former USPTO patent examiner here. I'll answer why an overworked USPTO will lead to more patents at present, but I make no claims that it should be this way.
The effective default is to grant patents. Why? Because the examiner has a finite amount of time for each application and has to have some sort of justification for a rejection. Unless there are some formal problems with the patent application, "I couldn't find prior art" means that a patent will be granted. Examiners could try "official notice" to basically say that they don't think it's novel or non-obvious without providing a reference, but that's easily defeated by attorneys. Examiners must provide a clear justification for a rejection.
If the amount of time an examiner has is too low (and it's far too low), that increases the chance that no prior art will be found, and consequently increases the chance that invalid patents will be granted.
Contrast that with the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court can decline to see a case. You can't do that as an examiner. You can try to have an application transferred, but that will just give it to another overworked examiner!
Suppose an institution is overworked, it has two options - long queue or rush the job.
Courts understand their role is important, so you have a long wait, but they d0 the job properly.
Patent office, perhaps, rushes the job. Now whether they issue too many or too few patents is maybe equally bad, in my view, it’s screwed up either way.
And the wealthy and powerful use that wealth and power to influence how government functions.
Thus, the current situation.
And the maximum payout on violating a patent should be the remaining profit to end the patent.
Differences between industries then look after themselves.