Um, no. It is to keep someone from hijacking your innovation as part of their product.
You are aware of the one thing—that the protection of one’s creative invention allows one to market it, as marketing it generally makes its secrets public.
A patent requires the disclosure of the secrets, a patent can be voided if key details are withheld. This disclosure preceded the introduction of a product (Indeed the inventor loses the right to patent any idea publicly offered for sale before the filing!)
Some things it makes sense to patent, some things don't. Where would Coca-Cola be today if they had patented their recipe?
On the other hand, a patent more often is used to quash similar inventions.
Often it is. This requires competitors to patent their own technology and cross license when and where they can.
Often when an invention is made, it is that the time is ripe for it—general social innovation or other discoveries make something obvious or needed in ways that did not previously exits. Many people discover the same innovation, all independently. That is, let me be very clear here, MANY people working in the same field would naturally be expected to come up with the same or similar innovations on their own.
Yep. Been there, done that. Got the patent.
Chris Dixon, an investor and a long-term entrepreneur: "a key part of the problem is that so many patents are clearly obvious to anyone skilled in the art." ... any competent engineer could create what's found in the vast majority of software patents ... the examiners simply aren't competent enough to recognize what's obvious.
Mike Masnick, founder and CEO of Floor64 and editor of the Techdirt blog: "few people in Silicon Valley actually think patents are a good idea any more. The system has become so distorted that most of the people they're supposed to benefit the most don't want them, but feel compelled to get them due to the system. What a massive amount of waste, leading to a mess that holds back innovation."
Fred Wilson, "The basic problem with patents is that you're trying to assign property rights to something that doesn't deserve property rights. The fact that these property rights end up in the hands of financial owners as opposed to the original inventors just exacerbates the problem. The basic problem is that [a] bunch of engineers can be sitting at [lunch] designing some amazing new feature and somebody unbeknownst to them has a patent on this feature and never actually implemented it and can now screw them over… It’s just not right, it shouldn’t exist." ... compares patenting software to patenting music, noting that neither makes sense.
The company I went to work for after that one got one of the first "algorithm" patents. I left it, and felt a fool for having joined it. What a regressive company! The want to rest on their prior inventions and market position, like milking cows. That's not innovative. I am intensely innovative in whatever I do. I did not fit in well there.
I've seen both software and hardware patents repress innovation. With the hardware patents generally one can invent a modified product that does a similar function. That's not so easy with many software patents because they are so loosey-goosey. So software patents are more effective as tools of legal extortion.