3 ms·
This is really really messed up. Besides the usual patent troll options of: - (costly) settle - (costly) fight There is now a third option of: - (profitable
by oniTony 15y ago
This is really really messed up. Besides the usual patent troll options of:
- (costly) settle
- (costly) fight
There is now a third option of:
- (profitable!) join the bandwagon, not get sued (by this particular company), strengthen your own IP defence position by gaining licenses to the entire portfolio that was threatening you in the first place. There's even profit-share for settlement revenue!(Edit: profit-share might be for "board" seats only, but it sounds like it costs IP contributions to get in anyway.) All for a low low cost of transferring over some patents (that are just licensed right back to you). Of course this just enables more of the other companies to get sued.
This has a potential to get really out of hand, really fast. :(
- joe_the_user 15y agoYes, Once you accept the framework of software patents and all its implication, you have embarked on the project of dividing up the "digital commons". And to do that, you just need an "alliance of the willing" - ie, you first gather together the muscle power needed to control the turf and then divide the spoils. There's no idealism and no distinction between patent troll and "real company" once the company is playing the intellectual property game.
- r00fus 15y agoThat third option is what forms the basis of Intellectual Ventures' business model [1]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures