> Hackers tend to overestimate the importance of things like this and not take into account those in flyover country or people who aren't aware of things like t

> Hackers tend to overestimate the importance of things like this and not take into account those in flyover country or people who aren't aware of things like this. "Flyover country" is full of hackers, but in any case, you seem to be completely ignoring Newegg's core demographic. > Yet many companies led by responsible legal teams and management also settle and move on. This is not clear cut by any means. You might even say most. Which is precisely why this is so interesting. I find it disturbing to pursue this line of thought of seriously questioning whether fighting and winning against a patent troll is irresponsible leadership in a company. Doing so plays right into the patent trolls hands. So what if the bean counters can't figure a better ROI than simply settling every time? There are gray areas in business and I think it's incredibly harmful to question whether shareholder interests are being maximally served every time a company does something that might be mistaken for altruism. Should we also denounce any company that goes beyond EPA standards or donates to charity beyond what tax law would dictate optimal?