Thanks for the perspective. I understand the sentiment, but I fear Mickey-Mouse'ing of that 3 years. If that company is wildly successful, they'll have the funds to lobby for extension after extension on that 3 year expiration. Just like how many Disney properties were supposed to enter the public domain in 19xx but are still off-limits (yes, copyright law is a different domain, but the concept translates). On principle, I think there must be a hard line that the system does not work this way - "we know it's bad but maybe it will only last a few years" isn't a compromise I'm comfortable making.

I get your reticence. I think you have the hardline of it is done three years after submission with NO exceptions. No extensions, no derivative works. I think we are generally agreeing just that the law must have teeth or it will be bypassed or revoked. It is a fair point but we have to assume some partial rationality when proposing solutions or their can be none.

I don't know about non-transferable - if IBM are better placed to capitalize on my invention than I am, I think it should be fair to sell it to them.

But I'm certainly in favour of some use-it-or-lose-it clause that lets a "portfolio" age quickly.

But in that case IBM can license the invention from you, which is also the idea of a patent. And instead of negotiating a selling price you would negotiate a licensing price.

Does that realistically make a difference? The only difference between selling it for $x or leasing it for $(x/3) (assuming GP's proposition to dramatically reduce the term), is whether they want exclusivity, whether they can back out of a lease early), and who shoulders the costs of defending it. At that point you've made little difference to how patents affect the industry, you've just increased the administration for the inventor.

It would mean IBM couldn't sue someone for violating it.