My question is: Shouldn't an inventor be constantly rewarded for his labors (if they are successful) without having to worry about renewing them or letting them fall into the hands some other guy?

"Music machine" inventor George Antheil and the actress Hedy Lamarr together invented "spread spectrum" technology, which is the basis for all cell phone, wireless internet, pagers, defense sattelites and a whole lotta other spread spectrum devices. And what have they recieved for this? Just a few plaques and rewards. These two people are just anumber of countless indivduals who have not gotten to cash in on thier inventions just because they didn't renew thier patent.

I assume you are then in favor of monopolies, lack of competition, and excessive prices for goods? Patents expire to allow other companies in to encourage competetion, thereby reducing the prices for goods. They exist for the period they do to allow the inventor time to capitalize on his hard work. It is up to him (her) to do so within the allowed period--which I believe is normally ten years, more than enough time to do so.

A patent is a deal between an inventor and the people (represented by the government). In return for a finite guarantee of exclusivity, the inventor discloses the invention and it is ceded to the public domain after the period of exclusivity - more than long enough for an interested party to develop and market the idea, if they already had the required prototype at patent time - expires. Increasing patent terms denies the public the benefit of that bargain.

If the inventor wants an indefinite term, they should treat the invention as a trade secret instead of patenting it, and hope nobody discovers it independently. Nobody is required to patent anything.

Very good point, Platypus.

A patent, by definition, puts your discovery in the public domain. You have exclusive rights to your idea, but because it is public, someone else can come along and improve on that idea.

In today's business climate, patents are alot less useful than they have been in the past. There are alot of people out there who simply take patented ideas and modify them enough to get another patent (or simply get around an existing one...). In today's climate, the person with the most money wins, because getting a patent isn't cheap; defending one can even more costly.

The problem with trade secrets, on the other hand, is the technology available to reverse engineer a product is tremendous. A patent at least affords you some (however small) measure of protection.

Precisely why you never see a patent in the software business.....or very seldom in the IT business in general. It's just like giving away your company's secrets....

I am an inventor myself, and I think patents and trade secrets are bad thing for progress of science and technology (just like all capitalist solutions). Inventors should receive high and guaranteed reward for invention from goverment, and, probably, a small royalty, but they should NOT keep it in secret, otherwise, the discovery is almost useless and plays only applied role.

If only that were true. Unfortunately, software patents even on obvious ideas are all too common. The bitblt and LZW patents come readily to mind as examples.

If that were the case, inventions would not go on with the speed in which they do. Forcing a company to forfeit patents after 10 years gives others to build upon that patent, or to apply it to other existing inventions that the original creator may not be able to see, or even do anything about.

It also forces companies to continue to find ways to compete, using their patented products expirations, to innovate, instead of being able to "sit on their laurels" and price gouge for outdated products.

Take for example, medicine. If patents didn't expire, most of the products on the pharmacy shelves would be prescription only, and would cost you a small fortune. Even the stuff you take for granted now, like pain medications (ibuprofen), cough syrups (robitussin), and antacids (rolaids, pepcid and prilosec) were all once only available by prescription.

Ending those patents allowed for other companies to manufacture similar products. This forced the original companies to lower prices, place the product "over the counter", and forces innovation on new, better acting medications. Allowing them to keep the patents would not allow for new work, as they could continue to dominate the market, and maintain exclusivity in pricing on current products.

So, overall, it's far better to allow them to make their money for a set period of time, if they can, and then open up the competition.

And how would the government determine the proper reward?

Using same methods that are used by corporations before making innovations (innovation = investition into novation). For example, we can use Net Present Value to calculate economical effect of discovery. Or, if it is purely military innovation, order military experts to calculate military effect. Corporations and goverments do this today, and with great success.

The Net Present Value method requires something to be input for expected sales of the new device. I would be extremely uncomfortable having the government have any input into this. First, as government, they have no experience in the private sector. Second, and more importantly, exactly what is going to prevent some politician from rewarding someone by exaggerating the sales claims, thereby providing said inventor with an unjust windfall at the taxpayers expense. Third, far too often the 'expected' sales figure is greatly over-estimated. This would be especially true using the system you propose. Say you have two new technologies, each competing for sales in the same market. Who's to say which will win? You can't afford to reward both for sales neither is likely to make. If you split it equally, one or the other is probably being short-changed. Further, say that once these rewards have been doled out, a third product comes about that completely takes over the market from the first two. How on earth could the government (or anyone else) come up with a system that accounts for all this? They can't. This is why, on the open market, inventions so often are accounted little value--you can't determine the actual value before the fact, because it might in fact be almost nothing. So, in your system, you would be excluding those who have truly exceptional ideas from ever being fairly compensated for them.