&gt;Pharma patents are less abstract. They patent a product, not the idea of making a product. &#x2F;&#x2F;<p>All patents are for ideas, in order to acquire a patent you have to give details of how to perform it - how to create a product&#x2F;device or how to work a system&#x2F;method to use the idea - but patents are not given for products per se.<p>I&#x27;m not that familiar with pharma patents but the few I&#x27;ve seen were quite abstract, they make claims that cover many different chemicals rather than one &quot;product&quot; (this when attached to that group; this when attached to some other group; etc.).<p>That said I was specifically responding to the [paraphrasing] &quot;you have to pay them to be healthier if they patent the medically beneficial method&#x2F;technique&#x2F;device&#x2F;drug&quot; - which is true for all companies holding healthcare patents that they don&#x27;t give free licenses on.<p>WRT the particular product you do it a disservice - yes changing things at a time were known, yes changing colour palettes were known but there is synergy in the idea of removing blue light elements from a monitor gradually as dusk passes in order to prevent the negative effects of blue light on people and the method of changing a CLUT to achieve this end forms more than just a colocation of known ideas.<p>One argument in this sort of situation has always been quite powerful to me - if it was so obvious then it would have been done, the need was known, the individual concepts were available. Almost every idea seems obvious <i>post hoc</i>.