$1000-2000 for >25% reduction in fuel consumption. I agree with E-P--just do it, already.

Mild hybrids is a good way to go, big savings for those idling in big city traffic.

GM's eAssist is under $800 cost as an option on the Canadian Buick LaCrosse website.. a lower voltage system should be much lower cost.

"when patents keep us from making progress, they need to be reformed."

A very well put collectivist view, as a rule historically collectivism has been far less able to provide advancement or improvement to the people or the environment.

The tragedy of the commons etc...

As for mild Hybrid systems IF it can reduce fuel use at a market sustainable price then by all means use it.

Better the Good that can be done than the Perfect that can not be achieved.

I do not know the globe you reside Engineer-poet, your description of the patent process ascribes reasons amd motives well beyond the scope of the US Constitution.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

As can be seen there is no equivalent verbiage to your "so that others skilled in the art can understand and use them" but instead states "exclusive Right" with no direction as to how they may use that right.

You are of course correct that all law is part of the social contract, and any part of it may be changed as the society wishes... but not all change in improvement.

Patents are not monopoly licences, they are meant for the inventor to recover development costs and that is ALL.

They profit by competing and providing a better product at a better price, that is the American free enterprise market system.

While you talk about "collectivist", Japan, Korea and China's companies are working with their governments to dominate world markets.

While you talk free market philosophies on one hand, you condone monopoly licenses on the other. Which is it? Do we compete or do we sit back and rake in all those profits from our patent positions?

You seem to be under the impression that ideas are "things", and for someone to acquire an idea takes it away from the previous person to have it.

Well, maybe that's your notion (sounds very Rand-ish), but it's not how things work in the real world.

Copyright and patent are bargains.  Writers and inventors can publish their ideas, and society at large (through government) won't let anyone else copy their ideas for a limited amount of time.  At the end of the protection period, the idea becomes part of the "public domain" and everyone can do as they want with it.  If the public didn't get the benefit of the public domain at the end, the public would have no interest in providing the courts and police at the beginning; that's the other half of the bargain.

There is also "trade secret" protection, which can last indefinitely but requires inventors to keep their innovations secret (as opposed to "patent", obvious).  This is handled with contract law, and obviously it doesn't work with inventions which have to be revealed by the nature of the products sold.

"But patents are government-granted monopolies" correct with out them innovation suffers.

My statemts are in no way absolutist but are in line with the US Constitution as I quoted.

Radar as a concept (Maxwell/Hertz) was well known.

"The fundamental principle of the radar belongs to the common patrimony of the physicists : after all, what is left to the real credit of the technicians is measured by the effective realisation of operational materials" Maurice Ponte

"we can impose a mandatory licensing regime tomorrow" only with the acquiescence of the Courts (far to often the case) to not uphold the Constitution. I will agree that the Constitution has mechanism for amending it.

It is amazing how often those that wish to "help" everyone so easily trample those that disagree... I.E. in this case Patent Holders.

Nestor, it is amazing how right wingers who whip out the Constitution have no idea what it actually says or means. Here is a link to a bunch of resources on compulsory patent licensing by the US government, a common practice that is authorized by the Constitution and enshrined in literally dozens of US statutes. If we chose to have the US issue compulsory licenses to mild hybrid technologies for the purpose of energy security, it could literally happen tomorrow. There would be negotiation or court cases to determine what royalties are owed the patent holders, but it is really a simple eminient domain problem.

Learn some law before you position yourself as some sort of expert.

Gee and here was me thinking that the Constitution is the highest law of the land and all others are subordinate to it. Thus my quotation.

Note the word EXCLUSIVE.

The history of "nationalizing" sectors of an economy have worked so well... please see Mexico and Wage and Price Controls under Nixon..

Eminent domain.. fan of the Kelo decison I see.

Thank you for your Ad hominem attacks it does show the quality of your augments.

There is no Capitalism only Crony Capitalism operating in the US.

Maybe some of us could eliminate the name calling, it does not make for a good discussion. Just because you do not agree with someone does not mean you start calling them names.

If they insult you, you can insult them back for what little good that might do. Leadership has to do with persuading others to see your point of view. Some are not leaders and others are blind, this does not bode well for the species.