3 ms·
> So why would anyone buy in before they get a letter, Plenty of people have already gotten a letter; if they all pooled their resources they'd have a decent d
by jogjayr 9y ago
> So why would anyone buy in before they get a letter,
Plenty of people have already gotten a letter; if they all pooled their resources they'd have a decent defense fund already.
> , or maintain their membership once they're no longer in court?
This one, I agree, is harder. Best I can propose is a minimum 5 year membership once you've been sued. Or tweak it some other way so that membership is slightly cheaper, or about as much as, settling.
- kbutler 9y agoOr, incentivize membership by having the group own a bunch of patents, and then sue people who don't pay their membership! The ultimate protection racket! "You've got a nice product here, shame if a lawsuit happened to it..." Wouldn't you know, it already exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG_LA
- jogjayr 9y agoYeah it's a fine line between "insurance" and "protection". The key distinguishing factor here is the protection pool actively seeks to invalidate bad patents. It could also lobby for patent reform. By doing so, it makes patent trolling less profitable and thereby, reduces the need for itself in the future. It's like a health insurance company funding research into perfect health and immortality (but more achievable).