Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Paul A. Clayton" <paaronclayton@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Architectural implications of locate mode I/O and channels
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2024 12:53:54 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <v6eh74$dngk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v61jeh$k6d$1@gal.iecc.com> <v66g8t$2qed8$1@dont-email.me>
 <3d7df1c5113800b31f72d79005ae5897@www.novabbs.org>
 <v673e2$2tsuj$1@dont-email.me> <v67619$2k2s$1@gal.iecc.com>
 <457f62eb41e55887e4f71159a5ffdb2e@www.novabbs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2024 18:53:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="73d072ab588e882fb9195008f5bf9b2f";
	logging-data="450068"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1964JhBIqsYUr+xkHzBIAzHZlrFCEBAsN4="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+EcXZrrDnTKRhYQ2K5Z+YokH/g0=
In-Reply-To: <457f62eb41e55887e4f71159a5ffdb2e@www.novabbs.org>
Bytes: 2595

On 7/4/24 7:39 PM, MitchAlsup1 wrote:
[snip]
> In general, IBM uses its patent portfolio in a defensive posture.
> 
> Imagine you are the employee of xyz corporation and want to assert
> your newly granted patent onto IBM.
> 
> IBM will simply show you that they have 400,000 current patents that
> they will assert back on you if you try. Most of the time, xyz corp
> cannot afford to even read all of IBM's patents and remain with
> positive cash flow. Often xuz corporation does not have enough
> employees to read all IBM's patents in the duration their new
> patent remains valid; and they certainly cannot afford to hire
> lawyers to do it.

Of course, that does not work with non-practicing patent holders.

In theory, non-practicing patent licensors seem to make sense,
similar to ARM not making chips, but when the cost and risk to
the single patent holder is disproportionately small, patent
trolling can be profitable. (I suspect only part of the disparity
comes from not practicing; the U.S. legal system has significant
weaknesses and actual expertise is not easily communicated. My
father, who worked for AT&T, mentioned a lawyer who repeated sued
AT&T who settled out of court because such was cheaper than
defending even against a claim without basis.)