It takes capitalism from the realm of physical property to a realm of "ideas as property".
Patents to software were are a mistake. Patents in general are a mistake IMHO.
If you don't patent an idea that you use somebody else will and they will extract rent from you.
So you must "defect" by paying lawyers to search through every product you make looking for ideas you've used that don't have a patent.
You cannot "cooperate" by refusing to patent ideas.
You cannot "cooperate" by refusing to inform people they've violated your patent, because somebody else who uses the idea may also be granted a patent and now you have to go to court or settle.
The result is a flood of articles saying "Apple patents obvious idea X! What bastards!", when in fact every major corporation has no sane option to avoid that behavior.
In the prisoner's dilemma, the highest theoretical yield for each prisoner is achieved by everyone "cooperating", but that isn't really the case here.
The fixed patent fees and inadequate institutions granting them mean big companies are disproportionately able to rack up on patents and increase their yield as they "defect" and play the game. They could lobby to strongly restrict or even abolish certain types of patents but they don't have much of an interest to do so, since patents solidify their already strong position in the market.
No, it's to own _your invention_ so someone else (with more money) can't mass-produce your invention while you're only able to produce and sell in Peoria.
Are many patents rubbish in one form or another? Yes. Are some patents nothing more than an "idea" without an invention? Yes.
Does that mean all patents are just an "idea"? NO.
Invention != Idea.
> Patents in general are a mistake IMHO.
We can and should improve the patent system by shortening the term lengths, denying "obvious" patents, limiting the ability of someone to patent an invention that they never exploit (i.e. build and sell).
None of that means we should toss out patents entirely.
One of the major issues with patents is that they take too long to expire. If the goal is for me to be able to get up and running before a big competitor takes the idea, I need a few years, not a lifetime.
I do find it amusing how much people call startup small and fast and yet some large company can swoop in and execute on their idea and knock them out of business if it weren't for a patent?
It's a cute story, but I suspect the real innovation gains from those small inventors are a teeny, tiny, itty bitty fraction of the harms to innovation caused by the patent system. It's not a good bargain.
I don't think anyone would really argue otherwise, certainly I would not. I'm just advocating for reform because I think the idea is really valuable.
That's the sticker on the front. Not what actually happens though.
Wonder if the Patent Office could be sued for false advertising? "it doesn't do what you're selling it as..." :)
Meanwhile big companies can just spam patent applications, amassing a strategic stockpile that makes it less devastating if one of them is invalidated
This whole structure serves the interests of big companies even if they are infringing!