"monopolies are able to exist because of some sort of legal authorization or protection"
The entire point of patents...
The entire point of patents...
Well, if that were so, you would expect them to be secret and to never expire. The fact that are published and expire after a relatively short period belies the simplicity of that statement.
I mean, we have CEOs of biomedical companies admitting that they aren't basing prices off of what it costs to research, develop, and deliver a therapy, but rather base it off of what a deaparare person is willing to pay for it. This is the very thing antitrust laws were supposed to prevent, but the patent system is used to create a similar environment.
Since the problem seems to come a lot, maybe the problem is the role of money in politics and we should address the root cause. Just a thought.
Benefit of rnd is being first to market. You will capture much of the market while everyone else catches up and you are in a better position to innovate.
Also without these legal barriers if somebody can improve on it and make it better that's better for the community and consumer at large and allows for constant iteration.
Also there is a lot of bad behavior and things encouraged by the patent system. You have judges giving patents over technical nuances they can't possibly learn in a courtroom. You have companies like Intel spending millions on legal teams to enforce things rather then engineering innovation, which is great until you are no longer the dominant player and global players don't play by those rules.
Sure some protection is necessary. You could make it based on development costs and have much shorter times for things that were cheap to do.
"maybe the problem is the role of money in politics and we should address the root cause. "
There are a lot of problems in politics that should be fixed - rules for thee but not for me (rule of law ignored), basically insider trading, high lifetime pensions, long careers, two party system, media bias/lies, and even problems in the voter base (us v them). Money is an issue, but it's really only good if the constituents are gullible or believe in the ends justifying the means. The real root of all of this is that politicians are a separate class from the rest of us and aren't accountable to anyone unless their transgressions are egregious, and then only sometimes. Rule of law has become a joke.
I am more familiar with the 510(k) that most people are. It bypasses some testing, but there is still a fair amount of work. It has nothing to do with R&D expenditures that may or may not be behind an submission.
They preemptively sued me in a state I've never worked in or entered for that matter because the favorable corporate law there, and that is why they have their hq there. They would file a bullshit motion, get everyone in front of the judge. Somebody would point it out, they would retract it, and immediately file a new one and request everyone have time to review it. All the while bleeding me dry at 500$ an hour for litigation on top of travel expenses plus the regular legal fees of multiple lawyers across two states.
The whole thing was bullshit, lots of red flags but I lacked the capital to assert my agency legally..
The ip/patent framework as it is today helps nobody but big co and promotes regulatory capture. It prevents the kind of reverse engineering you see in China and why we don't have things like removable battery cell phone mods and other "hacks" here. It's why the right to repair is an issue at all, if they didn't have this legal framework they wouldn't be able to enforce any of it legally. Somebody would come along and offer a service to do it at a fraction of the cost. Why do I have to keep buying the same media over and over again on different formats. It's amazing to me seeing the most authoritarian regime in modern history leverage the free market better than the "capitalists". Sorry for the rant but this shit is imo the reason for most of the corporate bullshit today. It's what empowers the lawyers.
As just one laughable example, I had a magistrate think that requesting the case to be dismissed with prejudice was me calling him prejudice. You dont even need to have a law degree or pass the bar to be a magistrate.
I really don't know. Your experience is awful and clearly unjust and an abuse of the system. You didn't mention Texas, but I'm guessing Texas. What happens there is a national disgrace.