One is Google sized, and the other one is patent troll business model.
The Google-sized problem has large legal teams at each others throat. i.e. if a patent doesn't have sufficient novelty, Google has sufficient resources to get it invalidated. The definition of novelty should be tightened. I would love to link it to an objective measure of brainwaves of those familiar with the arts, looking at the level of surprise and delight at a solution.
The patent troll business model is a shakedown business model, and I'm also looking at general copyright infringement over file sharing as well. This requires legislative change to require a "reverse class action lawsuit" if a firm intends to send out identical complaints to more than say, 100 defendants. This enables the defendants to band together to fight these in the courts.
One is Google sized, and the other one is patent troll business model.
The Google-sized problem has large legal teams at each others throat. i.e. if a patent doesn't have sufficient novelty, Google has sufficient resources to get it invalidated. The definition of novelty should be tightened. I would love to link it to an objective measure of brainwaves of those familiar with the arts, looking at the level of surprise and delight at a solution.
The patent troll business model is a shakedown business model, and I'm also looking at general copyright infringement over file sharing as well. This requires legislative change to require a "reverse class action lawsuit" if a firm intends to send out identical complaints to more than say, 100 defendants. This enables the defendants to band together to fight these in the courts.