simo wrote:
The patent system should reward risk takers that actually made the investment, because if you don't, in the long term you will get no investments.
I agree with that, but you can't directly link investment, risk and result. Sometimes the investment required will be low, sometime high, ditto the results. The risk is somewhat quantifiable, but again, it's an art not a science (hence actuaries).
If the investment and/or risk is too high even the result, not enough people will put the effort in. If it's too low, then the system is faulty in the other direction. It's a balance. What you try to do is get a systemic result in which the balance (overall investment versus overall "progress" - and I quote that because I think "progress==patents" is fallacious) is about right.
If you put a basic requirement on the level of investment, you don't actually improve the situation. You're just turning the risk knob up, and so people will look to offset that risk - in the same way as when companies file their accounts, suddenly there are a lot of deductions they have against tax. It makes the system more expensive, but any decent-sized company would easily be able to allocation sufficient costs to the development to beef up their apparent investment.
Cheers,
Alex.