> I'm stepping back since you're clearly more interested in technicalities than my overall point.

When I disagree with your overall sentiment that patents have no value - then the technicalities ARE important. Regardless, I'll take the fact you feel the need to take the battle to new ground as a win and we'll move on.

> 1. They're the source off all kinds of innovation and startups that wouldn't otherwise happen.

"all kinds of innovation" - never said anything like that. I said patents incentivize investment into innovation. Big difference.

> Most funding is by taxpayers.

Well, I disagree with "most". Perhaps some but not most. In my experience, plenty of innovation comes from small entities. If this is not the case then why do larger players continually acquire the small companies? sometimes it's for other reasons but I suggest that at least some of the time it's for their innovations.

> "Private parties won't invest in things without patent protection? "

ok, clearly you are not reading what I'm writing. If you are referring to my "patents incentivize investment" then how is that equivalent to "won't invest without patent protection"?!

> So, alleged benefits of patents are a lie, esp in software space.

You are all over the place. Earlier you said patent holders win 100% of the time (which in a free market would mean investors would eventually be drawn in and invest in whatever it took to get these magical things called patents) and now you're saying the benefits are a lie?

> "2. They're primarily a tool to maximize profits of companies, small or large, that contribute almost nothing in innovation or features."

Of course they contribute nothing - they are merely pieces of paper. You don't create the innovation in the patent application itself!

> "Plus, most suits are coming from groups that produce nothing: acquire patents from someone for cheap, then sue anyone actually building anything. "

An innovator can no longer approach a larger player with an improvement to one of their products. The larger players have learned their most optimal business strategy is to weed out the majority by ignoring them until an infringement suit is brought. Many small players don't/can't - hence optimal strategy for larger player.

Is it fair for the larger players to do this? Morally, probably not. But large corporations have fiduciary duty to maximize profits to their shareholders - so from the shareholders perspective it is.

However, from the small player standpoint, they need to do what they have to - and often they realize that selling off their patent assets to another entity is their best option. Call it troll if you like but in reality they are more leveling the playing field by carrying out the IP enforcement that is difficult for the small innovator to do themselves. Either way, a patent is a patent and it matters not who owns it.

> "So, net effect is that patents are hurting innovation. "

For non-innovators or copycats that might be true, but for innovators that is patently false.

> "Surveys show they rarely ever read a single patent."

And then they act all surprised when they are slapped with an infringement trial :-) "But officer I did not see the sign".

> "That doesn't mean we actual innovators should stop fighting monopolies mostly issued to non-innovating, big companies and small companies that sue instead of sell products."

So the innovators aren't getting the patents while the non-innovators are? Please, give it a rest.

> "A patent is a legal monopoly. A monopoly by definition and style will lead to higher prices than competitive segment with many players innovating"

Monopolies encourage investment - in this case, investment into patents means investment into innovation means investment into R&D.

> "Or existed but don't count in a "first-to-file" system that favors patent holders."

This was introduced in the last patent reform (AIA). 2 steps forward and 1 back - or 1 forward and 2 back?