Molson Hart

For example: I could file and be issued a patent for process that doesn’t work, like cold fusion around the bounds of the claims I’ve submitted. Now I’m protected within the bounds of my claims, but the patent is worthless because the technology doesn’t do anything of value.

If patents are a bad metric for inventiveness, what's better? I think what you wrote is technically true, but in practice, usually false. People don't spend the hundreds of hours and many thousands of dollars to patent useless crap.

I would disagree with that. Holding a patent with a large enough claim can yield dividends without actually creating or proving anything. Eventually, ideas outside of industries you never even thought of now violate your patent and you have grounds for legal action.

For example, maybe you patent the idea of a red or green color indicator when someone’s lock a portapoddy door. If the claim of this patent is broad enough they may inhibit the growth of future industries they have no interest in.

Sure, but what's the alternative? No protection for novel ideas? Then where'd be an inventor's incentive to make a new improvement if the improvement will not be protected.

It's much more likely that that red-green port-a-potty occupancy sign would prevent others from getting a patent in other fields than it would serve as a royalty leech in it.

The alternative is to forget the idea of patents and move on. Any entrepreneur with a track record knows execution >>> idea. Thus why do we care or admire people with patents. Ideas are a dime a dozen, executing those ideas is what really matters.

I am an entrepreneur with a track record and I can tell you that, in physical products, patents have value. Without them, there would be no incentive to make any novel physical product because as soon as you executed on your idea, China inc. would crush your business.