A modern drug takes a lot longer to develop than some e-commerce thing like one-click ordering.

Sure, that’s what the one-time extension is for.

The way they use patents, however, is completely abusive. In general:

1. patent the process to make the drug
2. release the drug
3. around the time the patent is set to expire, patent a slightly different process, and get authorities to ban the old one
4. repeat

Patents last 20-25 years, which is just ridiculous for pretty much anything. Here’s how I envision the process for medicines:

1. patent the process to make the drug
2. struggle to get through approval process w/ FDA - can take years
3. renew patent and release drug -> approved because you obviously haven’t recouped your costs
4. after 5-7 years, you have recouped your R&D money and established your brand, so the patent is no longer important (i.e. most people still buy name-brand Tylenol because it’s trusted, despite cheaper alternatives being just as effective)

For something like a phone:

1. patent the process to make the device
2. release device
3. file for renewal -> rejected because you’ve already made up your R&D costs and no longer need a monopoly

14 years gives the creator not only the most lucrative period, but also the vast majority of the tail of the distribution

Agreed, as well as with your point about corporations. I used 14 because it has precedent, but honestly 10 years is more reasonable. It needs to be long enough that a work that didn’t get mainstream attention in the first few years but gets it later doesn’t get sucked up by a competitor, but short enough that it’s still relevant culturally when it expires.