I'm not following why it matters that a patent exists on an obsolete product?
If the market has moved on, who cares if it's patented for a few more years? And if the product hasn't, I think 20 years is plenty reasonable.
I was referring to the length of the patent. Society moves at a faster pace so why did we extend the length not shorten it? That is what I was asking. Maybe 20 years is the right amount of time.
Right, so if society moves faster, and the product is obsolete, does it matter if it's still patented?
I can think of cases where longer is helpful, but what benefits does only 5 years get us?
Like I said, there are issues with the patent system. Too many obvious things are patented nowadays. Patent trolls abound.
But the length of time I don't feel is an issue, and I think 5 years is way too short. Businesses will still research, yes, but if something is invented by someone else (a small time inventor), they can "wait it out" and then implement it without ever having to pay any patent royalty fees. That is bad for the small inventor, IMO.
The 100+ years of copyright is what gets me most heated about our intellectual property system. Works that should be in the public domain (like MLK Jr's I Have a Dream speech) that aren't, decades later. Ugh.