> If you’re a garage inventor you either are making something or have ambitions to. Let's personalize it: Fulfilling that "standard" for my own personal paten

> If you’re a garage inventor you either are making something or have ambitions to. Let's personalize it: Fulfilling that "standard" for my own personal patents would require me to register as a financial institution and employ people with all the licenses, some of which not one individual can hold all of simultaneously, actually run that institution, launch products, get traction on those products and then pat myself on the back because all is right with the world. All because I had a particular idea in a niche market first, which only I consider an improvement and worthwhile at the priority date, while nobody else would or did. So as someone with much more immediately lucrative and interesting ideas, I'm clearly not going to pursue that path. So.... are people proposing I just drop the idea when I had it, or what would the other incentive to share it with the world be? I should just let others independently come up with the idea an unknown number of years in the future and just say "hey look haha I had that idea a while back", or even worse, risk allowing reality to go in a completely different or less improved direction? I feel fortunate that I was even able to afford to make a record of my idea in the compliant and uninfringeable way. I know plenty of people that are too segregated from the system to even attempt that. It is insulting to think "ah fuck that person [with $20,000] because they didn't build a prototype in their modest garage!" The gatekeeping, how does that even make sense? Okay so now there is a document saying I had an idea first (speaking on behalf of all patent inventors), and even more rarely and privileged is that fact that I am not having to assign all my ideas to an employer who then owns the patent. So what is being proposed here? I'm a "non practicing entity" and all my paths to monetization are invalid because of it? Should I leave it rhetorical? Should I say "hey cool awesome tech or fintech firm, I really admire your work, you should buy my IP" because that works so well? Should I say "hey cool awesome tech or fintech firm, cease and desist now" because that works so well? Should I say "hey well capitalized company in the business of monetizing intellectual property, I'm trying to recoup costs so that I can build a workbench in my garage because people on the internet will respect me more so what kind of arrangements do you have for patents again?" thats likely whats going to happen and is the path people take So what do you and anyone passing by actually propose? Because what is suggested doesn't really make sense and hasn't really factored in what individuals do and why