It's the way the patent system works. You file obscene numbers of unenforcable patents for the sake of mutually-assured destruction should a patent war come up.

It's the way the patent system works. You file obscene numbers of unenforcable patents for the sake of mutually-assured destruction should a patent war come up. Most patents have massive amounts of prior art, are obvious, or otherwise unenforcable. But if you threaten a patent lawsuit against me, either: 1. You can put me out of business 2. I have my own warchest of 1000 patents. I find 30 your're breaking. They're all bunk, but it gives enough uncertainty that I might be able to put you out of business that you don't sue. Employees at companies have to go along with it to keep their jobs. I have a big problem with vilifying and blaming them the way this article does. Not everyone has to share your sense of ethics to be a good person. Big companies are only slightly more to blame -- they have to do it to survive. In addition, I'd still rather see these patents with HP than with a little company in East Texas. The problem is the patent system itself. We need reform it. The way it is set up, frivolous patents like these are (1) necessary and (2) draining the lifeblood of America. The problem also comes in around enforcement. HP is unlikely to sue a free software project. I honestly believe that they intend to treat the patents as mostly defensive. But HP isn't doing so hot on R&D, and the odds of the patents going to a complete patent troll in the next 20 years are maybe 10%. There are dozens of companies like HP.