[Sense]

Intel doesn't do ANY research... as a matter of corporate policy established at the founding of the company. It doesn't make sense to pay for research when you can buy what you need at below market rates... because of the massive subsidies from government, and because our intellectual property market functions have long been broken through a combination of neglect and the accumulated impact of too many lawyers over too much time.

If you want to re-energize innovation, all you need to do for a quick start... is fix what's broken with the patent system. That doesn't mean "conforming" to consensus opinion on international norms, either... it means structuring systems that encourage innovation because they can readily identify it, and because they enable that recognition rather than create obstacles to recognition.

Beyond that basic function, as long as a patent provides only a "right to sue" rather than some more basic legal property protection... so that patent infringement is a criminal offense of trespass pursued by the state, like breaking and entering, rather than a "civil" matter which pits individuals against the lawyers and $ of international conglomerates in legal battles... we'll get more of what we've got... which is a system which prevents recognition of accomplishment outside the corporate controlled market scheme that the patent office has become.

Microsoft would not survive in a world where theft of others ideas was considered serious... but it is that lack of serious concern for non-corporate IP use and ownership rights that is the problem.

[Rodney King]

OK, I stand corrected on Intel. The rest of your post is quite interesting, and I agree that patent infringement should be criminal. As it stands now, and individual researcher can have his ideas stolen by anyone with more resources than him, as he can't afford the cost of protecting his/her patent.