I have two dozen patents to my name and know dozens of others who hold as many or more than I do. I also know just as many successful entrepreneurs.
Not one had ever said "I would commercialize <x>, but for the patents", nor have any said "I would stop doing innovation if patents ceased to exist".
I concede that there are some field where it might make sense (eg pharmacology), but most of the time, patents are a tax -- hugely expensive for small innovators and weaponized by mega-corps.
Further, in times of crisis (eg COVID or war with radar), patents are suspended for certain topics to promote speed of execution. We are at that point for climate change & energy efficiency.
I would like to have a breakdown of individual vs. organization-backed inventors. Quite a lot of - but I don't know how much, relatively - patent applications are filled by individuals with help and in the name of their employer; there are companies who are proud of the number of patent applications they file per year - and those are mostly bona-fide inventions, not patent trolling.
(It's entirely expected, if you think about it - a big company employing skilled specialists doing actual[0] engineering is bound to become a patent mill, as those workers have to invent their way out of new problems.)
I suspect that this might be the primary way patents are applied for and awarded, and it's different from the usual narration, that patents are either small inventors wanting to ensure the market rewards them for their hard work, or evil megacorps buying them up as a part of peace-through-MAD balance with other evil megacorps.
--
[0] - Traditional, "trad", not-software engineering. I know this is just a stereotype, and this[1] series of articles does a great job debunking it, but... well, I haven't fully internalized these conclusions just yet.
