The author is … (drumroll) … a lawyer.

and patent trolls are … lawyers.

So who does patent trolls benefit? Lawyers. It’s no surprise that lawyers would come to conclusions that are beneficial to them.

“as they did the author.”

A more likely scenario is that the author preconcluded that which is in his own best interest.

While his resume is impressive, he does seem to have a conflict of interest here as well

“was a partner at intellectual property boutique Russo & Hale LLP in Palo Alto, California.”

http://www.law.villanova.edu/Our%20Faculty/Faculty%20Profiles/Michael%20Risch.aspx

Reading through the article, the article doesn’t provide any evidence whatsoever that patents promote the progress.

Here is an example of what it does say, things that we mostly already know.

“NPE’s create patent markets, and that those markets enhance investment in star-up companies by providing additional liquidity options”

The purpose of patents isn’t to create patent markets, it’s to promote technological advancement. That resources are being wasted on patent markets, especially on non-practicing entities that provide for absolutely no innovation, diverts resources away from actual innovation.

“NPE’s help businesses crushed by larger competitors who infringe valid patents with impunity”

Which says nothing about how much patents promote the progress. A patent is ‘valid’ because the USPTO grants it, which says nothing about the actual quality of the patent in terms of its effect on promoting the progress.

Chances are the big business didn’t even see the patent, why would they willfully infringe on a patent when they know the consequences are high? They probably independently came up with their products without the help of patent troll owned patents (patents that the troll isn’t even creating a product for).

“NPE’s allow individual inventors to monetize their inventions”

Which is not the purpose of patents, the purpose is to promote technological advancement. No one is entitled to a patent, and chances are that others will not willfully infringe on a patent (knowing the consequences of infringement) and have likely independently come up with similar ideas. IOW, the patents have zero R&D value, these ‘inventors’ that get patents aren’t special, they are coming up with ideas that others are likely able to independently invent. Why should we reward those that do nothing (beyond thinking up things that they can restrict others from doing) and punish those that actually innovate and bring products to market?

Again, telling me that I can’t do something (without paying you) doesn’t do me any favors and it does no one any favors. It only helps the dictator telling others what to do. In order to tell others what to do, you must disclose to them your wishes. That’s not a form of transparency, and I’m not fooled into thinking it is, it’s a form of authority.

“Fifth, very few of the companies supplying patents to NPE’s are out of business; instead, most came from productive companies (and most of those continue to operate).”

So why are productive companies wasting resources on obtaining and selling patents when those patents are supposed to be about using patents to help the company produce products.

“any startup holding a patent is much more likely to receive funding than a company without patents, and the increased probability is at least possible that NPE’s contribute to that difference.”

“at least possible” translation “this is unevidenced, unsubstantiated speculation.”

and no one doubts the monetary value of patents. Otherwise, patent trolls wouldn’t have them. Having a government established monopoly is monetarily valuable. But that’s not the question here, the question here is, do they spur innovation and where is the evidence? The article doesn’t seem to address this.