Something has gone very wrong with the patent system. Americans think of the granting of patents as a benevolent process that lets inventors enjoy the fruits of their hard work and innovations. But times have cha-nged. The definition of what is patentable has slowly evolved to include business practices and broad ideas.

Should genes be patentable? What about life forms? The high-tech and pharmaceutical industries find themselves at odds on reform because patents affect their businesses so differently. Meanwhile, profiteers have turned the very purpose of patent rights — to encourage people to invent and produce — on its head, using them to tax, blackmail and even shut down productive companies unless they pay high enough ransoms.

The possibility of this sort of abuse is inherent in the concept of patents, which in the US allow no one to produce or sell a patented product for up to 20 years without a license from the patent holder. The nation’s founders considered intellectual property important enough to include it in the Constitution, but did not establish the system for the sake of the inventor. Now the pendulum has swung so far in the direction of the patent holder that many experts are of the view that we are not only restricting competition, but discouraging research and innovation as well.