Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 5th Jul 2012 23:07 UTC
Permalink for comment 525625
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2009-07-18
How about: "the aggressor in court must not only prove that the patent is valid, but also that it sells a product that uses this patent."
So if company A has a patent on a working product that it sells, and gets bought by company B, then we have three scenario's:
1) B bought A's patent and production line. Patent remains valid when going to court.
2) B only bought A's patent and has its own product that uses this patent. Patent remains valid when going to court.
3) B only bought A's patent but does not produce a product. Patent is no longer productised and hence becomes invalid when going to court.
So there can be no patent trolls. Hoarding and spreading FUD/blackmailing a la Microsoft would still work but the odds of winning a court case are much lower, so the blackmailing wouldn't be as efficient.