When patents become not examples of new and innovative design features but instead fractionalize the design parameters to such a degree that there is for all intents and purposes a defining difference between designs of less than the smallest increment possible where does this leave the consumer? There may be some small change in how we wind a widget but should that require a patent protection? We know the rest but it will happen more and more as things and technologies age while the ability of patent holders to research their rights on the internet is advanced.

Second; the best example I see of why patents can be harmfull is the drug industry. Why certain drugs will not be manufactured and the patents will be enforced preventing manufacture by others is a common theme in the health industry.

Third on a personal note (I hate to be personal here but there is no way around it), I like old jazz from the 30's-50's. Much of it is not remastered and sold but it is owned by record companies. In order to acquire these pieces I have only one option; I must find a file sharing service and look for these recordings and download them illegally. If I don't do this I won't have the music because the record companies will not produce unprofitable music.

So that is the connundrum I see. Do companies that do R&D have a responsibility to provide data that can save lives? Do I have the right to copy songs that the recording companies refuse to release due to unprofitability? Does a guy have any rights to reverse engineer a part that he will not get any other way and that he requires to rebuild his existing unit? At what point in the culture does someones right to ownership tread on others rights to participate in the culture?