[bruce511]

Your solution though attempts to fix the system by making it "cost more". This will always favour large corporations, with more money, while prejudicing small companies making small amounts of money.

Shortening the monopoly period simply reduces the time small companies are protected. For example, I invent widget x. I sell 100K worth of that a year. I can live on that. Patent expires, big corp copies x. I can't afford to pay for my patent, so they win. I stop inventing and go get a job at big corp to pay my bills. This is a net loss.

Equally this would not stop patent trolls - since in many cases their patent claims are bogus, BUT it would cost me more (and risk more) to fight it than just pay the license. People don't pay the license _because_ the patent has value, they pay because it's the cheapest route out.

Trying to ban "patent trolls" also fails because "troll" is subjective. If I licensed my widget x above to big corp, and I don't manufacture anything myself, am I a troll?

Your suggestion would not stop "defensive" patents either (although it would reduce their number.) But if you can stop competition with 10 patents you don't need 1000. So it'll have no net-effect.

[clairity]

sorry, all i get here is an emotional appeal, not coherent reasoning, so i'll bow out now.

happy to reengage if you can reformulate these thoughts into a rational position.