The problems is that 9 out of 10 times, that idea is derivative of some other idea(s). And you just have to hope that the original idea(s) either aren't patented or have since expired.

If only there were a different form of intellectual property, one that grants a limited monopoly over the embodiment of a creative work rather than legal ownership of the idea behind it. Oh, wait. There is. It's called "copyright." And it's (more than) strong enough for the job.

Hint: the marketplace is the way to get that credit.

AFTER EDIT: Both of the first two kind replies to my comment ask for some more details about what I observed overseas. Early 1980s Taiwan was the land of "Rolex" watches sold on street corners, pirated United States bestsellers in English-language bookstores for tourists, and general violation of patent, copyright, and trademark rights. Every country in the world seems to go through a stage of copying rather than innovating in its economic development. Eventually, as Taiwan democratized, it became apparent that international trade relations would OF COURSE be helped by meeting treaty obligations to protect intellectual property from other countries. Moreover, it was discovered that there are plenty of creative, inventive people in Taiwan, who created more and invented more as gradually domestic individuals and companies received greater legal protection of intellectual property rights. Innovation is hard to sustain where copying is the path to quick riches. But innovation becomes a more reasonable path for investment of personal time and effort if being first to make something new allows some LIMITED time (I'm with everyone here in desiring intellectual property rights not to extend too long in time) to enter the market and see what consumers think of the innovation.

Can you speak on this? Do you feel patent right were weak, or all of intellectual property rights?

I will admit, you can be a great engineer and a terrible businessman, and thus fumble a first-mover advantage, but I don't think patents are the solution to that.

Would you mind elaborating on your experience?

Therefore, the marketplace encourages companies to take a fast-follower approach. Let someone else spend the money to come up with the idea, and then pounce all over it.

The goal of the patent system is to encourage the idea itself, by giving a monopoly to the inventor. In this way, fast-followers have to compensate the inventor for the invention by licensing the patent.

Alternatives to patents -- prizes, research grants, compulsory licensing, etc. -- are also designed to separate the value of the idea itself from the rough-and-tumble of the marketplace.

You might have missed the "look and feel" reference in the post. Lotus (makers of another spreadsheet, "1 2 3") sued other companies over the look and feel of software that was "too similar" to 1 2 3. Two companies went out of business.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_Software#.22Look_and_fee...)

That's certainly one principle. But literally implemented "principles" are often toxic when it comes to public policy. I largely think that's due to a failure to think through the effects on the entire system. The principle is emotionally appealing, but ends up having undesired or even disastrous primary- and/or side- effects in the real world.

In the patent case, we have a Mexican Standoff[1] in that virtually every player is vulnerable (violates one or more patents knowingly or unknowingly) and the only defense is stockpiling more armaments (patents) and shooters (legal staff). The risks and barriers to entry to small players are high. And that doesn't account for the actions of parasitic agencies like patent trolls.

That said, things are largely more open now in practice. The level of interchange of ideas and code is far, far greater now than ever before. That culture didn't die or go away -- it exploded right along with the rest of computing.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_standoff

You're thinking at the individual scope. When making a policy, a given individual doesn't weight much. Even all inventors put together don't have much moral weight, compared to the rest of the population.

So, patents rewards inventors. That's an advantage. But it's a little advantage, for there are not that many inventors to begin with. There are also the costs associated with the implementation of patents (patent bureau, patent lawyers…), which may be significant, but not much in my opinion. So, on first approximation, we can ignore those aspects, because there are bigger effects, that affect society as a whole.

On the disadvantage side, patents restricts what people can do, and they kill competition. (Of course. They were designed that way. But it's still a disadvantage.)

On the advantage side, patents are an incentive for inventors to invent, and for companies to fund them. The inventions then benefit everyone (starting with rich people, but still).

Now, all we have do do is measure which weight the most. See how patents actually affect society, and decide if it's a net benefit, or a net loss. Either way, try and think about policies which may have more advantages, or fewer drawbacks —or both. Patents are far from the only way of encouraging innovation, after all.

You can see that it's much more complex than the "reward the inventor" principle. Principles are good, but they're often not enough. When you look at actual consequences, you see that sticking to easy to understand principles is not always the best thing to do. Especially when deciding for an entire country.