Because that is what patent law is focused on. And yes - that's exactly why is ISNT applied consistently because only things worth patenting are filed. If you think you have a billion dollar idea (and you may have) - and no one has thought of it - are you suggesting you simply tell the world and expect everyone to play nice ? The only way to prove something is unique is if nothing is available in the public domain or nothing is filed before hand. I'm in no way suggesting the patent system is great (read above) - but removing it entirely like this article suggests is also wrong.

Yes, but so what if I have a "billion dollar" idea? An idea is merely a thought inside the mind. Just because an idea can be used to make money shouldn't give me (or anyone else) the right to own it. If you don't want others having access to your idea, then keep it to yourself. Thomas Jefferson put it far better than I ever could:

    If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than
    all others of exclusive property, it is the action of 
    the thinking power called an idea, which an individual
    may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to
    himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself 
    into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot 
    dispossess himself of it.

    That ideas should freely spread from one to another over
    the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man,
    and improvement of his condition, seems to have been
    peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she
    made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without
    lessening their density in any point, and like the air in
    which we breathe, move, and have our physical being,
    incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.
    Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

I like to think of it like this: At some point in the past, two ancient humans were sitting in the rain. One of them -- let's call him CavemanA -- was smart enough to construct a shelter. That certainly would have been a unique and valuable idea at the time. But do you really think that CavemanA should then have the power to tell CavemanB that he's not allowed to build a shelter?

Ideas are not property. Allowing people to own them is extremely harmful, and should only be done to prevent even more harmful situations from arising. We certainly shouldn't give someone ownership of an idea for no other reason than to reward them for having it first.

I entirely disagree. "keep it to yourself"

a) the society doesn't benefit b) then you do nothing with it c) then you don't commercialise it for gain d) if you don't protect it - you get crushed by everyone else who does

and so on and so on. Indeed, Jefferson stated

"Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility"

Discouraging commericalisation of unique ideas - discourages those who are capitalist and want to move society forward. If every had no protection of their ideas - then all good ideas would be copied and the incentive to produce new ideas would be reduced as a result - or rather everyone remains secret and tries to produce entire products by themselves - again argubly reducing innovation. As I stated in my first post

"The problems with the patent industry are patents abused by companies who have absolutely no interest in developing them but rather trolling them to simply extract money from other companies. Hence the reason the law should be reformed to attach patentable rights to have a enforceable requirement to actually 'use' the patent - thus destroying the majority of trolls. If you dont actively use it as it is meant to be - you have nothing. The requirements and the search of prior art should be greater and longer - to ensure patents are truly innovative and this should not be the role of the courts (due to expense, time and so on within the legal system)"

The argument with the cavemen is a primitive example. My response - Caveman B would most likely build it or kill Caveman A to build it. Which extrapolated to the protection of ideas in modern society may very well occur - competitor A and competitor B want to succeed more than each other and so on. If Caveman A is stronger than Caveman B - then he may very well ask for fruit to borrow his design - Caveman B gives him something of value to borrow his unique design - the other alternative.

Idea's should be able to be commercially protected. You suggest that by no one having a right to commercialise them that society would be better off - what is then the point of innovating and trying to essentially fulfil the capitalist dream of commercialising inventions to profitability if everyone is freely copying everyone else's ideas ? It results in no competitive advantages to some degree. The desire to be innovative and drive society forward is closely coupled with the profitability and commercialisation attached. That's not to say that all inventions require profitability - but most people seeking to protect their inventions are seeking to do so to ensure they maximize the potential of their idea's from a commercialisation standpoint. If anyone was free to copy anyone's truly awesome idea - that doesn't reward or provide additional incentive for people to innovate per my post below - what you get instead is the Samwer brothers who just outright cloned everything.

I think you are missing his point. His point is not that patents should not exist, it is that patents are not protection of ideas. They are protection for inventions, as in, the actual (used to be physical) functional embodiments of an idea.

If you allow someone to patent cotton gins just because they thought that they sounded swell and wrote the idea down, you've seriously hindered any kind of market at all. Your idea is worthless without an embodiment, and no one else can make anything until your patent expires.

If you allow someone to patent all cotton gins based on their single implementation one, you again have poisoned future implementations -- perhaps better and more efficient ones with completely different physical forms -- just because they belong to the idea class of "cotton separating machines".

The point is a very important one: ideas are not property. We can go a little further and say all IP is not property either. You cannot be deprived of it (short of a lead pipe), but you can be deprived of your granted right to profit from it, for a little while at least. That's the motivation you speak of, and that's the only reason patents exist at all, at least in the US.