The desire to pull down the entire patent system because of failures in the software industry is understandable, but misguided, and the proposed solution is completely unworkable.
Patents [should] exist to recognize and reward real and substantial effort to create new technology from research. There is real value in fostering a research community as a separate discipline to pushing it to market.
OP talks about 'insufficient capital' - but that's looking at it the wrong way around. An "inventor" shouldn't be defined by capital they're able to bring to bear. The cost and skillset required to invent vs commercialise a technology are vastly different, and punishing capital-poor inventors serves to suppress innovation.
"Patents" are not the problem. Inappropriately awarded patents, impossible-to-contest patents, and an outlandishly complex and expensive legal system are the problem.
I either didn't explain myself well enough or you're misunderstanding my argument. I'm not proposing abolishing the patent system. I'm proposing abolishing the market for their resale.
Patents [should] exist to recognize and reward real and substantial effort to create new technology from research. There is real value in fostering a research community as a separate discipline to pushing it to market.
OP talks about 'insufficient capital' - but that's looking at it the wrong way around. An "inventor" shouldn't be defined by capital they're able to bring to bear. The cost and skillset required to invent vs commercialise a technology are vastly different, and punishing capital-poor inventors serves to suppress innovation.
"Patents" are not the problem. Inappropriately awarded patents, impossible-to-contest patents, and an outlandishly complex and expensive legal system are the problem.