As someone whose contributions to society would require much greater licenses and capital than I would ever get, but can alternatively stretch my finances to ge

As someone whose contributions to society would require much greater licenses and capital than I would ever get, but can alternatively stretch my finances to get a patent because of brief time periods where I notice something that others overlooked, I absolutely understand why people do what they do. I would be a non-practicing entity too.... Why should I get vilified for that? because I will never have the licenses or capital needed to execute that idea, but I still put it in the public sphere - yes, even the broadened vague version that my patent attorney altered my ideas to. The patent attorneys themselves say it is a waste of time and money otherwise. So, what is the argument? That I should dedicate my life to one idea? I mean I know people that think thats their plan if they ever got a viable idea. The rest of us know better and churn out and dismiss ideas every week. What distinction is there, does that make me a patent troll worthy of your ire? Let me level with you, maybe there could be statutory tweaks to limit what purchasers of patents can get from infringement claims (The non practicing entities that buy up patents and find organizations to sue), if the current patent owner is not the named inventor. I agree that if all the incentives are misaligned and no individual entity is acting maliciously and just working with the rights they have, then we should revisit the patent system itself. I agree that judges in patent litigation are doing some strange/corrupt things. I just don't see how any preference is still addressing how to compensate people for ideas.