I also find the "bad PR" notions of PG and his rah-rah crowd on HN as deluded self-importance. The world at large does not care about such things. HN has become a self-selecting fish-bowl. In context of bad PR and PG's musings about 'me don't know if patents help or hurt innovation in history of tech', again I could not but think of that Edison and his desperate resort to "PR" -- electrocuted elephants and other large mammals -- when faced with robust patents of our very dear Nicola Tesla. Q for Hubski: Do you think Edison would need to kill helpless animals if he didn't have to do a run around of Tesla's patents? He did, in fact, ultimately license the very same ...
As for the question, I am not sure. If patents are about protecting the inventor, I think that they should be skewed as such. Say a patent is good for 20 years. Ok. But if you sell, it, say it is now good for 10 years (less the time that has already passed). Sold again, 5 years, and so on. That might take the currency aspect out of the system, or at least keep the inventor in for the ride.
I believe the above program of reform would address the critical failings of the patent system --
(a) ~ rigorous patent validity fact finding is currently delegated to courts; (b) the quite substantial costs of establishing patents internationally via WIPO (which forces some inventors to sell their soul to money bags.) 1 - All science, engineering, and mathematic federal scholarships
must be tied to a Federal USPTO examiner service obligation (like ROTC)
2 - All provisional patent applications must be published within the period of
9-12 months of the registration of PPA. Practitioners in the field may file
records of objection due to prior art during this period with USPTO.
3 - The United States of America, in recognition of importance of innovation
to social progress underwrites the costs of patent issuance at WIPO.
This is further incentive for the Federal Government to insure it does not issue bogus patents.
[deps: (1) (2)]