Without patents, if the tech is invented, it gets distributed quicker/faster/cheaper - that's a benefit to society, even though it's not nice for you.

So the real question is: Are there enough folks like you actually bringing real inventions that need patents as an incentive to outweigh the damage done by the patent system? I don't know, but it seems like cases like yours are not so common. I've only read anti-patent studies, so I lack information to know if cases like yours are actually providing a net positive.

If they do it despite patent protection, do you believe you would have the time and resources to sue them, and that you would actually win? I imagine those companies would have more time to dedicate to a lawsuit, better knowledge of the patent system, and that they could afford to lose more money than you... This is an honest question, I see patents used by big company A to sue big company B but I have no idea if the US patent system actually manages to protect the interests of "lone wolf" inventors like you in this kind of setting.

They could. They probably won't. They've got their own projects in the pipeline, they probably won't be as fast as you think (the first Android phone came a full year after the first iPhone), if they're behemoths then they're probably pretty risk-adverse anyway, and typically actually revolutionary ideas are sneered at by the establishment. (A very specific one that comes to mind: Paul Baran's packet-switching network idea was mocked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Baran#Selling_the_idea ) Stop worrying so much about imaginary competitors!

Or as Jessica Livingston wrote in the introduction to Founders at Work: "People like the idea of innovation in the abstract, but when you present them with any specific innovation, they tend to reject it because it doesn't fit with what they already know.

"Innovations seem inevitable in retrospect, but at the time it's an uphill battle. It's curious to think that the technology we take for granted now, like web-based email, was once dismissed as unpromising. As Howard Aiken said, "Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats.""

I don't think you are wrong, I just cannot see a proper solution either way.

Patents are a state enforced monopoly given to the invetor in exchange for information disclosure. Now that's all nice and all, but I for one would like that the state worked on proportionality when giving out aid. Is 20 years needed for you? whats your cost analysis? whats your business model? Do you expect you will need 20 years until your invention pays for the invested time and money? Would 18 years work? or say 12? maybe even 5 years would be enough? This are questions I think the patent officer should ask before giving out state enforced monopolies for 20 years.

To answer your question of alternatives to patents. Have you looked into foundations that gives out money to people working on inventions for blind people?

If not and the state is really the only entity that can give you enough to support the inventing process, then for everyone sake, please write your patent application in such a way that it actually do count as information disclosure.

Yesterday I had run into a discussion about blind programmers, and what technology they use. Rather than using TTS I think I would (were I blind, I'm not) use a braille terminal instead. Out of curiosity (or perhaps procrastination), I starting looking around at those, and they didn't seem much advanced, and very expensive.

I was thinking that instead of having the the braille "display" below the keyboard, I'd really rather have a small wireless version that I can pop in my mouth and read with my tongue. That way I could still touch-type on a regular keyboard. I think that would make me much more productive than constantly having to move my hands back and forth. Maybe use Bluetooth with Serial Port Profile, and then it would be easy to connect it to phones and PCs.