This makes me nervous. 1st Story Line Patent Published. It's true. Some is actually trying to patent a story idea. I have looked over the patent and it kind of looks like an old plot line from Star Trek: The Next Generation so it's not original but that's not the point. The point is that this is a blatant attempt to patent an idea. This has been an issue with software over the last ten years or so and now it seems to be spilling over into other creative areas as well. The question I have now is; if someone can patent a story line does that mean that someone can patent a jazz progression? A modernist style? Slang?

Patent law is supposed to be for the common good. By forcing "inventors" to expose their methods and devices others could, after a period of time, innovate and improve on the invention and in so doing benefit society. Patents are, in a literal sense, a government approved monopoly allowing the inventor to reap the rewards of hard labour. However, the monopoly is limited, allowing other inventors to extend and improve on the original invention after a period of time.

In the world of raw materials and production costs patents make sense. It costs a lot of money to build prototypes, set up a new production facilities, adhere to government regulations, etc. In short, in the physical world the risk is great so it makes sense that the reward also be great in order to attract people.

In the world of ideas, writing, music, sculpture and even mathematics, the risk is very low. Most software companies can build a throw away prototype for the cost of a few man weeks of labour. If the cost of failure is so cheap, why introduce a monopoly mechanism for a great reward. And more to the point, how does this monopoly benefit the common good? How can preventing anyone except the patent holder from writing about comatose amnesiacs for the next twenty years benefit society?

Is half a generation a reasonable amount of time for an idea to be withheld from the commons? In that time many things can change. Music can go out of style, technologies can be obsoleted, new scientific theories can conceived. How much will that slow if one person is prevented from building on the ideas of another?

Companies and individuals who fund the creation of new intellectual products should be rewarded for the risks they assume. However the reward should be proportional to the risk. Providing monopolies for economic advantage to individuals and corporations does not make sense if it is to the detriment of common good.