4 ms·
Defensive patents are for when IBM comes after you with a stack of patents demanding licensing fees amounting to 3% of your revenue. Then you whip out your def
by pnw_hazor 8y ago
Defensive patents are for when IBM comes after you with a stack of patents demanding licensing fees amounting to 3% of your revenue.
Then you whip out your defensive patents and demand that IBM licenses your IP for 3% of their revenue. (Win-win cross licensing ensues...)
Patent trolls are a different animal though. However, having some good patents may at least protect you from willful infringement (increased damages)
- ATsch 8y agoI feel like this is just a loose-loose situation that instead of encouraging and protecting small innovators from the power of established companies instead just locks them out. Patents are essentially MAD (except of course for the part where everyone dies if it goes wrong). Like nukes, these patents aren't actually useful. They are only necessary because everyone else has them and the people actually under threat are the less powerful people that don't. This is very different from say pharma patents, where companies seem to directly benefit from Patents in their intended way. I wonder if it's time for a Patent Denuclearization... but I'm not exactly sure how that could look like.