Ask HN: Why is there no "execution" rule for patents?
At my company, in addition to working on our core competency, we occasionally look at cool, compelling side projects to branch out to in order to grow the company.  Recently, though, I've been consistently frustrated by existing patents blocking us from executing on really compelling, valuable concepts owned by people who aren't doing anything with it!  At the end of the day, a lot of these things we want to use ourselves and would pay for them I'd they were offered.  Are there subtle (or not subtle) arguments against a "to qualify for patent protection you actually need to build this" clause?  Ideamen are usually annoying but harmless, but more and more i'm seeing them actually impede development and innovation.