When you're using it as you did to try to make the point that the patents were overly broad - then of course it matters!
> "but also wants to shut them down"
It's called leverage - the small player needs to gain leverage to affect a better outcome. Both sides do it, don't kid yourself.
> "Nobody used their patents or invention to build their products."
When you're not researching others prior art then you're reinventing the wheel. Not optimally efficient.
> "What are you talking about? You can't sell 50LOC"
Oh yes you can.
> "How do you create a voice over IP product without infringing a patent that claims to cover any transmission of voice over any data channel?"
Again, you are (deliberately?) representing patents as overly broad. I just showed you that the others patents were not as broadly covering ALL "end-to-end crypto" but yet you continue with these insane notions?
> "Most patents are filed by (a) big companies that sue small players for infringement or (b) Universities that sell patents to big companies that sue small players for infringement."
That's not addressing my point. I said patents enable small players to innovate and find success - your point about who's filing more does nothing to address my point. ...in fact:
> "The smaller companies, independent or academic spinoffs, often get acquired by big players"
further directly proves my point. The smaller players were able to find success - as you said by being acquired.
> "Most studies of effect on patent system shows this to be the case."
Except you just pointed out the small players are acquired. Not all studies are 100% correct. In fact, in the patent world there are many purposely misleading studies.
> "Your claim about small businesses is a legend. That is, it's mostly a myth but with occasionally success stories to give it what little truth it has."
Or perhaps due to NDA's etc you don't hear about the small business successes.
> "Patents don't create innovation"
I hope I never said that because I completely agree. I would say something more like patents supply incentive to innovate but by themselves don't create anything but pieces of paper.
> "Patents then just restrict competition and drive prices up."
Same old tired line. If it drives prices up then generally it will lure investors to invest - and to invest in patents requires investing in innovation - investing in innovation means R&D.
> "And in courts that rule in favor of patent-holder almost 100% of the time?"
How long does it take for you to get a hint? ~15 years of patent reforms, numerous SCOTUS cases, POTUS trying to get involved, etc. So much money and effort spent yet patent-holders still winning. Do you honestly believe that one more reform bill or one more President or one more SCOTUS ruling will finally be the end? Whether I'm morally right or you're morally right - perhaps you are better off to face reality than keep bucking the trend. Hope is not a strategy.