>If an idea is good, monopoly is icing, but not required for its adoption. I would amend this to say that if an idea is obviously very good, and has an obvious

>If an idea is good, monopoly is icing, but not required for its adoption. I would amend this to say that if an idea is obviously very good, and has an obviously large market, then monopoly is icing. The inventions that you described fit this description, but 99% of inventions do not. It's more likely that your invention is either a small part that might contribute to a big improvement in a major industry, or a complete invention that could make a big difference in a market that doesn't exist yet. In either case, a company might not want to invest the resources to find out if your invention is useful just to have their competitors copy them once the proof-of-concept is available. >Do US Gov patents require that manufacturing be in the US? Not by statute that I'm aware of. But again, if you've invented some esoteric device that might have a $50M market one day, nothing makes government patent review boards happier than licensing that to a small business in Minneapolis who will hire a few dozen engineers and maybe even get the thing built in the US.