Patently bad

From Edward Syperek I found David Cooper’s article on changes to European patent law illuminating (15 February, p 32).  A question arises that I have never had a good answer to: if the aim  is to foster invention, why do patents grant a monopoly, rather than an obligatory licensing fee  so that others can use a newly patented idea or invention?  If others could legally use an invention and then improve it as they saw fit, that would spawn many more breakthroughs than  is likely from a single organisation that is often preoccupied with defending its patent. What’s more, a small organisation with a great idea  has a better chance of getting royalties from Megacorp for using their idea than of being able to prevent Megacorp from stealing it. I believe this approach has been used in the urgencies of wartime and worked out well. Deciding what would be a fair royalty  could be tricky, but compromises here should be easier to adjudicate than the black and white of granting a monopoly. Toronto, Canada