[tkeller]

This is simply not true. Regardless of how, say Microsoft, uses or doesn't use its patents, they account for a substantial percentage of its value on the books. If the accountants suddenly had to revalue them to $0, it would unquestionably have a big impact on the share price.

[SwellJoe]

Regardless of how, say Microsoft, uses or doesn't use its patents, they account for a substantial percentage of its value on the books.

I'd need to see some evidence of this assertion. When I was spending a lot more time researching tech stocks than I do now (now I spend 0 time researching tech stocks), I never saw a patent portfolio as a significant portion of the value of the companies I was investing in. Revenue and growth is king in tech company stocks. Book value is pretty much considered a big goose egg in software companies because they tend to have so little of it compared to old blue chips that have factories, brick and mortar stores, or infrastructure that has real world value. I'd be absolutely stunned if marking down their entire patent portfolio had more than a 1% impact on their market value, because I suspect even less than 1% of their revenue comes from patents...and revenue and growth is how people value MSFT.

[nitrogen]

Should that be a consideration when deciding whether to abolish software patents? If nothing else, the USPTO can grandfather the existing patents in, but restrict the ability of their owners to use them aggressively.

[tkeller]

Should it? I don't know. Will it? Absolutely.

And what does "aggressively" mean? Making a patent unenforceable will have the same effect as invalidating it.