U.S. intellectual-property law is rapidly reducing itself to absurdity. The most dramatic recent example was Mentor Graphics' attempt at a hostile acquisition of Quickturn Design Systems, and Cadence's white-knight defense.

Now both financial analysts and users of Quickturn's products are aware that, on the face of it, the takeover made no sense. Mentor already owned a European emulation vendor. The ill-fated campaign appears to go back to Quickturn's move to block Mentor from importing its own emulation system into the U.S. Quickturn was able to convince a judge that it held U.S. patents that were violated by the competing system. Mentor apparently sought to remove the obstruction by buying Quickturn and, thus, the patents.

Another recent example involves I/O architectures for servers. An industry group centered on IBM, Compaq and Hewlett-Packard has warned that it may demand royalties from OEMs using Intel's NGI/O scheme, based on fundamental patents held by the group, and allegedly violated by NGI/O. The effect would be to keep Intel and its motherboards out of the high-end server market.

Indeed, patents are being misused. What was meant as a tonic for innovation and a protection for inventors has turned into a bludgeon to crush competition.

As bludgeons go, a strong patent portfolio is devastating. It can shut down a product line.

But the power of patents as a weapon makes them dangerous to the wielder as well as to the victim. Most companies that have been around for a while have a huge file of fundamental patents. There is an amusing amount of duplication between competing arsenals. When big companies go eyeball to eyeball, often each of them has the power to disable the other with patent-infringement charges.

What we have here is the old nuclear doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. If I want to enter a new market, there is no way I can accumulate enough patents to do so "legally''-that is, without infringing on anyone else's fundamental patents. Instead, I file or buy enough fundamental patents of my own to make me dangerous. In this way a relatively small company with little track record and few achievements can threaten the industry giants with protracted litigation.

Does this encourage innovation? Nope. Does it protect inventors? Don't be silly.

So what's to be done? The first step is to admit that the patent system has become meaningless and must be dissolved. The second is to return to the original intent of protecting the inventors-not the chief executive officers, legal departments or even the shareholders. Patents must protect engineers from their employers as much as from anyone else.

Finally, the application and approval process must make patents meaningful.

Will all this happen? No. The only beneficiaries would be the powerless, and big companies would have to surrender their most powerful tools. Yet, ignoring the problem is our own way of marching double-time into nuclear winter.

— Ron Wilson is executive editor, special sections, for EE Times.