> Drug patents are bad.

Not sure what twist you might be referring to.

Look, I agree. I, mostly don’t like patents. I think most everything being patented are implementations, not inventions.

Implementation, in this context, means that if I ask a group of reasonably-trained engineers to create an LED light with multiple color channels that can be controlled individually, they will instantly reach for any a range of well known techniques —like PWM— and just implement it.

Yet, years ago the USPTO granted lots of patents on this very topic to a scammer under the company name “Color Kinetics”. Complete horseshit, and yet the USPTO thought they actually invented something any engineer could implement in a day or two.

Where patents make sense is in any work that represents real invention and requires non-trivial investment and work to bring to market.

Any patent. Type should not matter so long as the USPTO competently filters for real invention.

It should be hard, very hard, to get past that filter. And, if it was that difficult it deserves recognition and protection for a period sufficiently long to both allow the inventor to justify the risk, effort and investment and motivate them to take the leap.

Without this engineers and companies will choose to create ways for people to click ads and pass on the hard stuff anyone can steal.

It isn’t as simple as “I hate patents”, one has to understand how and why things are created and what it costs.