You found an R&D company, the research goes slower than expected, and after five years you run out of funding. Result of that is: 1) you can sell the partial progress and recoup at least a little cash; versus 2) all your work is worth absolutely zip. If (1) is true rather than (2), you'll be more likely to engage in a risky R&D business in the first place. If (2) is true, you'll focus on something that will yield a sellable product quickly.

This sort of trajectory is not uncommon in industries that have a steep R&D curve. When I worked at an wireless R&D company, we had individual pieces of lab equipment the cost of which would fund a non-trivial web startup to an MVP stage. There are biotech startups that burn through hundreds of millions of dollars without getting to the MVP stage. What the company is left with if it can't build a sellable product before running out of funding is a major concern for these sorts of businesses.

I agree with you, and I don't think patents themselves are the issue. It is the vast number of bad patents that are being approved and used as leverage against those that can't financially defend themselves.

If an R&D firm have spent millions developing (inventing) a new method of transportation, then they should be able to have that method patented. But I'd argue that "swipe to unlock" is not an invention and should definitely not be patented.

The transfer, sale, and collection of patents is fine as far as I'm concerned. That isn't the part that's broken.

Frivolous patent suits are only possible because there are frivolous patents being approved.

The problem is that distinguishing between good patents and bad ones isn't easy and the current statutes don't make it easy. Hence the seeming concensus on HN that patents are more trouble than they're worth. Which is an entirely justifiable viewpoint given the demographic of this site: if you're in the internet sector where capital costs are low and five years might as well be an eternity, then patents are almost certainly more of a hinderence in your industry than a help.

The question is: what about the 90% of the engineering world that's outside that sector? Imagine a hypothetical company trying to do what Google is doing with self-driving cars. Is there a non-IP business model for such a company that doesn't involve "bankroll blue-sky R&D with the massive profits thrown off by your advertising business?"

If you give money to people in exchange for innovation that encourages innovation. That said, purchasing patents only encourages innovation if those patents are the product of innovation.

Very true. You have to be careful to distinguish between

1) buying patents harms innovation, vs

2) That patent should not have been granted at all.

In my experience, most people arguing 1) either have a very confused argument, or turn out to actually be concerned with 2).

#1 can be a concern if #2 is too common. I.e. if it's too easy to make junk patents, trading them can become a lucrative parasite business. So some will file tons of junk patents just to sell them to trolls. In such scenario the fact that some are ready to pay for such junk encourages more patent pollution which only harms innovation.

Judging by the current patent system, patents and innovation aren't equal in many cases. On the contrary, patents are often equal to the stifling of innovation. So giving money for patents is not equal to giving money for innovation in general case.

I completely agree, but I still see how purchasing patents can encourage innovation.