3 ms·
It's rarely that simple. They each build up portfolios of different pieces and once it is sufficiently unclear which would win, both discount the value of anyth
by yakak 5y ago
It's rarely that simple. They each build up portfolios of different pieces and once it is sufficiently unclear which would win, both discount the value of anything additional on the unlikelihood the other will start something they might lose.
- lazide 5y agoYup. Anything involving the courts is high risk. If someone is spinning up a small entity to pursue some legal theory, it usually isn’t super high risk for them in practice as they can contain their losses. But existing entities with cash to lose, it’s rarely worth it unless the payoff is potentially huge and the case is really solid, and often not even then. Litigation Lawyers are great at making solid seeming situations super ambiguous and hard to figure out when it suits them, and these things can be drawn out for decades at incredible expense. And especially for software patents, there is no such thing as a really solid case anymore. It’s essentially a form of chicken/mutually assured destruction, near as I can tell.