Let's say I have a patent for rotating the image displayed on a homepage [0]. You are trying with a straight face to tell us that there is any valid belief tha

Let's say I have a patent for rotating the image displayed on a homepage [0]. You are trying with a straight face to tell us that there is any valid belief that this is an enforceable patent other than the incomprehensible fact that it was granted? And further, if you do provide competent representation and advise me that this patent is basically null if it gets challenged, present me with the obvious prior art, etc then you believe (again with a straight face) that it is ethical behavior to, on my behalf, threaten another party unless payment is made with legal action representing what you know to be false to that party and more importantly having no legal basis for a positive outcome in any legal proceeding? There is always room for improving statutes as no crafted law is a perfect instrument. It is clear to everyone by now that the simple existence of a duly issued patent should not be considered on its own as a valid basis for litigation. And, for the most part abuses are taking place outside of judicial purview or being forum shopped to certain favorable jurisdictions. I take issue with the ethical lapses having no consequence, and am advocating for self-correcting behavior by the very body that has that task. [0] http://1.usa.gov/dR6UBy http://1.usa.gov/dR6UBy