The issue with this stance is that your 'opponent' can easily shift assets and IP ownership so as to absorb the loss via litigation in a company which has non-transferable licenses, but maintain ownership over the patents in a seperate corp, essentially shielding them from any substantial loss that litigation would bring. Even if they lose, they just need to open another corp and re-license.
The problem? That means that your mega-corp would be at a net-loss for every patent suit filed. What's more, it would create the issue wherein parties who couldn't adhere to the standards of whatever mega-entity are exiled from the industry.
The only corps that can be sued effectively are those with cash. This is why people are willing to innovate in patented areas; if they succeed, they're rich and can afford to pay for litigation. If they lose, they won't get sued anyways.
Additionally, how exactly do you sue an NPE? They aren't infringing a patent. That's the entire idea behind being an NPE in the first place; you're not dissuaded by counter-patent litigation because you don't practice. NPEs were a reaction to the exact type of litigation broadside that you're talking about, specifically that patent-rich corps (Apple, Google, Microsoft and most of the companies in the telecom industry, for instance are a notable subset) could amass a patent portfolio so large that any encroachment you made into their industry would saddle you with massive search and negotiation costs in order for you to pay licensing fees, or open yourself up to being demolished in court the moment they needed you out of the market.
Non-practicing entities aren't really the issue. Most companies cannot, and do not, have the skills and assets to effectively enforce their rights. If you're a developer, you're better at focusing on developing. Accordingly it makes sense to allow people specialized in IPR enforcement to do that work for you. The idea that 'anything under the sun' can be captured under a method patent is far more sinister, and it accounts for the massive inflation in patents. The fact that protections over electronics are receiving overlapping IPRs from copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret is a far larger issue. It shouldn't be an issue of 'who' is asserting the patent rights, but rather 'what' patent rights they can assert. You bring this up in one of your replies, and I think your follow-up argumentation is a lot closer to a solution than this initial post.
Circuit topography's protection in the law makes a lot more sense, as its tailored to the industry it seeks to regulate. Patent, however, is a circus with too many clowns under the big-top.
The problem? That means that your mega-corp would be at a net-loss for every patent suit filed. What's more, it would create the issue wherein parties who couldn't adhere to the standards of whatever mega-entity are exiled from the industry.
The only corps that can be sued effectively are those with cash. This is why people are willing to innovate in patented areas; if they succeed, they're rich and can afford to pay for litigation. If they lose, they won't get sued anyways.
Additionally, how exactly do you sue an NPE? They aren't infringing a patent. That's the entire idea behind being an NPE in the first place; you're not dissuaded by counter-patent litigation because you don't practice. NPEs were a reaction to the exact type of litigation broadside that you're talking about, specifically that patent-rich corps (Apple, Google, Microsoft and most of the companies in the telecom industry, for instance are a notable subset) could amass a patent portfolio so large that any encroachment you made into their industry would saddle you with massive search and negotiation costs in order for you to pay licensing fees, or open yourself up to being demolished in court the moment they needed you out of the market.
Non-practicing entities aren't really the issue. Most companies cannot, and do not, have the skills and assets to effectively enforce their rights. If you're a developer, you're better at focusing on developing. Accordingly it makes sense to allow people specialized in IPR enforcement to do that work for you. The idea that 'anything under the sun' can be captured under a method patent is far more sinister, and it accounts for the massive inflation in patents. The fact that protections over electronics are receiving overlapping IPRs from copyright, trademark, patent, trade secret is a far larger issue. It shouldn't be an issue of 'who' is asserting the patent rights, but rather 'what' patent rights they can assert. You bring this up in one of your replies, and I think your follow-up argumentation is a lot closer to a solution than this initial post.
Circuit topography's protection in the law makes a lot more sense, as its tailored to the industry it seeks to regulate. Patent, however, is a circus with too many clowns under the big-top.