No they don't. The patent system was developed to encourage inventors to make their inventions public knowledge for the public good. It was never about encouraging invention, the limited monopoly was the means to and end, unlocking trade secrets for the public good. You've confused the means for the motive.
The results of the patents the Wright brothers were granted is quite evident if one compares the state of aircraft during the first world war - USA was woefully behind everyone else, mostly because the Wright patent(s?) stopped aircraft innovation there until it expired.
Also, it wasn't at all clear what the way to invent flight was going to be. Most people were trying an approach called something like "inherent stability" where they were trying to design their aircraft so that it couldn't crash. I.e. instead of giving pilots three axis control, they felt it necessary to design their aircraft so that pilots didn't need any control. So it may be obvious in hindsight how to invent flight, but it was extraordinarily non-obvious at the time, as every invention is.
We'd certainly like to believe invention happens for the sake of invention, but empirically dollar signs make the world go 'round.
A crude though reasonable way to estimate how inevitable a development was is to look at the period of time between when the prerequisites for an idea were created, and when the idea itself was created. Some ideas, such as the phonograph (which could have been created at least a few centuries earlier) have a very large span of time between these two things. These ideas could plausibly have been "missed" if circumstances didn't align. Other ideas were devised shortly after their prerequisites. Liquid fuel rockets burning LOX and LH2 were first considered by Tsiolkovsky just two years after hydrogen was first liquefied. Goddard did not know of Tsiolkovsky but that hardly mattered, that idea was inevitable. He, instead of Tsiolkovsky, went through with the idea.
In the case of the Wright brothers, powered controllable airplanes hit the scene quite shortly after suitable engines were feasible. They deserve credit for being the ones that actually did it, but there is really little reason to think that there was ever a risk of a future without planes.
"Wilbur was thirty-two years old in the spring of 1899. He realized that now was the time. He needed a challenge, a measure of himself—a problem that matched his skills and abilities. The recognition that flight was such a problem did not come in a blinding flash of insight, but grew slowly during the years 1896-99."
He'd been interested in flight since he was a boy.
Yeah, not a primary source, blah blah blah, but lots of citations in there.
While they were busy trying to enforce their patent, they stopped innovating, and their competitors kept moving forward, exploiting the market the Wright brothers created.
But back to software patents, if the real societal good of patent law is disclosure than there is no need for it at all in the software world. As soon as Visicalc sold their first spreadsheet every programmer knew how to build one. There is no benefit to society to grant the monopoly in exchange for instructions on how to build a software idea.
The straight forward way is to give a financial incentive for inventors to tinker and come up with new ideas.
The way you're suggesting is to give inventors (that are already inventing without need of incentive) an incentive to disclose their invention and then that will promote other inventors to build on top of the invention even though they will have pay the original inventor for the privilege.
My point is that neither of these methods are effective at promoting progress in software.
No, we're discussing the reason patents exist.
> The way you're suggesting is to give inventors
I'm not suggesting anything, I'm simply stating why patents exist.
> My point is that neither of these methods are effective at promoting progress in software.
Software should not be patentable at all, so we're not in disagreement there.
The reason patents exist, as you've repeatedly asserted, is to promote the progress of science and useful arts. We are discussing two mechanisms by which that might be accomplished (and by which it is quite arguably accomplished in some fields).
Then our discussion is over as that is the only point I was making.
> We are discussing two mechanisms by which that might be accomplished
No we are not, as how to accomplish promoting science was not anything I commented on at all. You may be trying to discuss it, but I'm not interested in that digression.
That is explicitly what you commented on, twice. I can go into more details if you need them, but geeze...
"[M]otivating inventors was not the purpose of patents, it's merely the side effect of the method used to get inventors to give up their trade secrets."
I quote you again:
"[M]otivating inventors was not the purpose of patents, it's merely the side effect of the method used to get inventors to give up their trade secrets."
Let's break this down a little:
"X was not the purpose of patents, it's merely a side effect of the method used to get Y."
And now you're claiming you weren't talking about X and Y?
Note that I've shown this to others, and they don't understand your position either, so if it's brain-damage it's not uniquely mine.
> Correct, the goal: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", i.e. make trade secrets public
I could just as easily say:
Correct, the goal: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", i.e. encourage people to invent.
My point is that it was left up to us as a society to interpret those words, and just claiming that your interpretation is the correct one does not make it so.
No you can't, inventions that aren't public don't promote the progress of Science. Science is by it's very nature a public endeavor.
> My point is that it was left up to us as a society to interpret those words, and just claiming that your interpretation is the correct one does not make it so.
It is so because words have meaning and under no interpretation can promoting science simply mean to encourage invention because invention alone, without making the knowledge public, does not promote science.
So "useful arts" doesn't refer to writings? How about "writings"?
I think that the most important secondary effect is that it puts all inventions on a more of less level playing field.
Inventions that can't be kept secret due to practical limitations(like the cotton gin, or the steam engine) are just as valuable as inventions that can be hidden (computer programs, chemical processes, etc.)
Because you can't know that someone can't reverse engineer what you're doing. The patent gives you legal recourse and a limited legal monopoly.
Of course not. But it remains true that your original argument doesn't work here.
I imagine you're generally against software patents. So am I. But don't hold up VisiCalc as a poster child for software development without patents, because in the long run it was very much a failure as a product, and the company that sold it went broke, while this might not have happened had they patented it.
I don't think software patents should be granted but clearly there's an incentive to patent as much as you can.
It used to be that you could patent specific implementations, and of some one could come up with a better implementation, they could patent that. Nowadays, it seams like you can patent just about anything, regardless of whether or not it can be implemented at the moment. It would be like the Wright Brothers patenting "a flying device that uses an engine and a propeller" without ever even trying to build one.
Patents, in theory, apply to methods rather than concepts, so if someone does patent "a one click shopping button" they should only hold patent for their implementation.
The problem is both the misapplication of patents which appear to grant patents over any implementation, as well as patents over implementations which are too simple, such that anyone who wants to build a similar item would go to that implementation as an obvious solution.