Mower99

There have been significant changes to the U.S. patent system the past ~10 years. One of which is the ease, effectiveness, and costs of invalidating a patent.

First, spend a couple of hours analyzing the Patent Claims. Often you'll discover that you most likely do NOT infringe at all - or least highly unlikely.

Other times (albeit after having developed a bit more knowledge one-time), you'll assess with decent probability of the likeliness of being able to invalidate the patent - then the tables turn - use this as a threat against the troll. They greatly fear having their $costly patent potentially wiped out. They too are playing the odds, and even a 10-20% probability of having their patent invalidated can go a long ways to dropping the suit against you.

At the end of the day, engineers are overly afraid of patents. If they spent a little time understanding them, they could greatly reduce this exaggerated fear. It's not an insurmountable hurdle - engineers&scientists have more innate abilities then they give themselves credit for. It's more of a matter that this exaggerated fear has been drilled into them. Lawyers are incentivized to perpetuate these fears.

-2 points?

Did I say something incorrect or did I simply illuminate some unspeakable truth that strikes against the narrative what ycombinator editors are trying to convince readers of?

Patents actually incentivize innovation - not hurt it.

Useful innovations are those which help society. Things that enable "standing on the shoulder of giants". Society values those innovations.

Often, the simple innovations are the best ones - yet, the simple innovations are also the ones most easily copy-able.

But, if something is easily copy-able, then one hesitates making those ideas public - for fear of copying and undercutting by competitors. Studies have shown that typically ~80% of R&D ends up as wasted effort (those 23 forks embarked on to realize #21 was the best).

So how can society encourage innovations to be made public? By providing incentives - such as patents - which are a limited time monopoly in exchange for fully describing the idea. Once the limited time monopoly expires, it is free for all - but in the meantime, others can read and understand the innovation - and either workaround (and provide society ANOTHER idea) or improve upon further or simply spark another idea.

Open societies out-proposer closed societies.

To understand you correctly, are you saying bankers&lawyers get drawn into acquiring startups? ...More about strategic interests than direct return on investment?

Interesting, and while I sense that you have legitimate experience and insight, I cannot help but feel this contradicts the reality that I see:

Many startups originate in the U.S. and while many fail, some either become profitable or are acquired. Why would another entity acquire if the future burden/liability you describe truly exists?