Thanks Kelsey for the thoughtful response. This helps. I wonder if your example of single vs thousand patent products is a metaphor for widgets vs services, thus relatively simple products are a better fit than complex business/computer/workflow systems or technology.

Also, do you get the feeling that a patent is a requirement for an ‘invention’ to be adopted here on EN? What I mean is, evolutionary ideas are in many cases not patentable, so speed to market becomes paramount.

Products (and methods, such as software-implemented algorithms) can be separated into different classes.

One differentiation I use is “single patent products” versus “thousand patent products”. “Single patent products” are those for which only a relatively low number of patents apply. This does not mean that the products are necessarily simplistic. Phamaceuticals, for example, may be exceptionally complex chemically, and be the result of many years of expensive work by highly intelligent people.

Relativley simple consumer goods are another example of “sinlge patent products”. Some of them may be exceptionally clever – the term “simple” here refers to the number of different parts, and is not intended to diminish the quality of the inventiveness that led to their development.

In contrast, “thousand patent products” are those, such as the computer on which you are reading this website, that use so many different components and algorithms simultaneously, literally thousands of patents could apply (although some very tenuously). By some estimates, there might be as many as 250,000 patents that could be asserted against you for using your computer. (Just think if you had to pay a 1% royalty on the purchase price of your computer for each one of those patents!)

In my opinion, EN does best with the “single patent products”, because those are the type fr which the manufacturer can obtain all of the necessary patent rights in a single license, and doesn’t need to be worried about being innundated with patent troll nuisance lawsuits.