An inventor can't develop their idea if they can't talk to manufacturers without fear of getting ripped off.
Of course, this idea doesn't give credit to the inventors and benefits copycats. I just wanted to mention the idea.
If some other manufacturer finds a cheaper way to manufacture the same thing, they can get a patent on their improvement, and push for some licensing deal once they have that.
(This doesn't change the fact that the modern de facto practice of patents is pretty messed up. I'm just saying that there's a good idea behind it.)
The lowest cost producer does indeed enjoy a market advantage in the market for manufacturing.
Well, let's take medicine with its huge R&D upfront cost as an example. Of course, given the recipe, the ingredients and the neccessary equipment, anyone can produce a medicine for dead cheap compared to the inventor, as they don't have to invest in R&D beforehand while the original inventor has to recoup the R&D cost and therefore has to call a price with significant markup over the manufacturing cost.
IMO, fair competition comes into play after the inventor has developed their product into something ready for production, otherwise the incentive to invent will disappear. Whether they then deserve a temporary monopoly to recover their development costs is up for debate I guess, but I'm talking about shielding inventors from getting robbed of their ideas.
along that line of reasoning, making claims is easier than proving them, always. It's not always the case though, any given prime factorization is easy to prove but hard to propose.
That's how it works. You patent the mechanism of achieving an end given some input, not the idea of it.
Proposals for such inoperable machines have become so common that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has made an official policy of refusing to grant patents for perpetual motion machines without a working model. The USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Practice states:
> With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device. If operability of a device is questioned, the applicant must establish it to the satisfaction of the examiner, but he or she may choose his or her own way of so doing.[24]
And, further, that:
> A rejection [of a patent application] on the ground of lack of utility includes the more specific grounds of inoperativeness, involving perpetual motion. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lack of utility should not be based on grounds that the invention is frivolous, fraudulent or against public policy.[25]
The filing of a patent application is a clerical task, and the USPTO will not refuse filings for perpetual motion machines; the application will be filed and then most probably rejected by the patent examiner, after he has done a formal examination.[26] Even if a patent is granted, it does not mean that the invention actually works, it just means that the examiner believes that it works, or was unable to figure out why it would not work.[26]
The USPTO maintains a collection of Perpetual Motion Gimmicks.