Here's another proposal that doesn't rest on social pressure, the effectiveness of which I fear Paul overestimates. Start a non-profit coalition with the follo

Here's another proposal that doesn't rest on social pressure, the effectiveness of which I fear Paul overestimates. Start a non-profit coalition with the following rules: (1) All patent disputes between members will be resolved by binding arbitration. The arbiters are a panel of domain experts (not lawyers!). There is no presumption that an issued patent is valid. (2) If a member of the coalition is sued by a non-member, the other members of the coalition make their entire portfolios available for a defensive countersuit. When a member's patent is used to defend another member, the former is compensated by the latter on terms set by arbitration. (3) There is no restriction on using one's own patents to sue non-members. It would also be stated policy, at least in the areas of software and business model patents, that the arbiters would be directed to apply a very high standard of obviousness, so that most issued patents would be of little use in an arbitrated dispute. Could such a thing work? No voluntary system can address the patent troll problem, as trolls have nothing to gain by joining it. But for practicing entities, it seems to me that membership in such a coalition could be beneficial, by reducing the likely number and expense of patent disputes.