Well, 2 years was just off the cuff. The aim is to allow companies to innovate, and get benefits from that innovation and from disclosing that innovation.

I was ignoring all the paperwork stuff before the device goes to market, so this two years is from product launch. Maybe that's a little bit short.

Another idea is to only allow patent protections for active products. Thus, if you're making and selling a widget you can use patents; but if you made and tried to sell a widget, and failed, you cannot sit on the patent for years and extract money from anyone who comes after you who is selling a different widget that happens to infringe a patent you own.

I don't know - I recognise the need to protect the hard work that people do, and to give them incentives to innovate, and to reward them for releasing those innovations to the public, but the current system is now thoroughly broken.

I also recognise there's considerable bias in the reporting. Maybe there are some small inventors who use patents for what they're meant for.