There was once a company, it got visited by the lawyers of a big corporation.
They claimed that this company violated patent X of the corporation and they wanted Y millions for it. The smaller company proofed that they did not violate this specific patent.
The lawyers just said, that their corporation owned X thousands of patents and many, many lawyers worked for it. If they go empty today, they will search and find 10 patents that where violated by the smaller company.
Tell what, the smaller company paid.
It might be, that to own some patents is good and to ask for it is reasonable for investors. But with the view on the nationwide or world-wide economics, patents are essential bad.
I once also heard (I am not so good in this history, so sorry I can not give details), that the US economy and inventions had so a quick rise, one reason was because they at first abandoned the patent system of the UK and did not care about the patents in the "old world".
Patent reform should focus on helping small and independent innovators, when in reality it is being driven by large deep-pocketed corporations.
That is right. I am also wondering all the time about the focus of patent reforms: so called patent-trolls. But as annoying they might be, the whole case looks very much like a diversionary tactic to distract from the real problems of the system.
[1] http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/05/01/is-patent-litigation-re...
One thing investors fear is investing in small unknown people where once the secret sauce is visible, it can be easily copied. In particular, copied by large corporations with customer channels, marketing muscle, deployed software installations with patch/upgrade cycles, etc... Investors often look at barriers to entry which patents happen to provide.