The Defensive Patent License and Other Ways to Beat the Patent System
eff.org
eff.org
I happen to work for RPX, and it's actually a very common misconception that people believe our model is identical to IV's.
The biggest difference is that RPX does not assert its patents, ever. It's our business model to protect operating companies making honest money from trolls. If you decide not to give RPX "protection money", we won't do anything to harm you. It's up to you to sign up for our services.
Another difference is that we also intervene in our clients' litigations, and help them resolve their lawsuits by buying patent licenses on their behalf. And we have advisory services for new companies not familiar with the rules of patent litigation, and patent market intelligence for those who want to keep up with what's happening.
So you give RPX protection money and they leave you alone. This is what Intellectual Ventures does. Why is it ok for RPX? (never heard of RPX before btw)
Or have I missed something obvious?
See also: Twitter Patent Agreement http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3853949
There's also value add whenever you have centralized expertise: think PGExperts, Percona, and EnterpriseDB (mysql and postgres consultants) - if I'm running a company whose core business is not in the data, it's usually more economical to outsource that expertise than hire a 'superstar' DBA. Same with RPX: if your core business isn't IP law you might as well outsource that.
This is why consultancies of all shapes and types exist in the world, after all.
Companies spend millions just to defend a suit whether they win or lose - that's why they settle. The genius of RPX is that they basically identified that as an inefficiency aka market opportunity.
A lot of startups could learn from this model: taking an existing market and making it more efficient. That's usually a better bet than building an Instagram or Twitter analytics company - the big caveat of course is you actually have to have domain expertise in an industry to do this type of startup ;)
> Wasn't protection against copying the original purpose of patents?
The original purpose was to provide an incentive for inventors to (a) invent stuff, and (b) disclose their inventions, so that after a limited time, the invention would be free (as in freedom) to use by any other party.
The problem now is that frivolous patents enable trolls to prevent, discourage, and stifle innovation, and the original purpose of the system is turned on its head.
When my cat plays with reflected lights dancing on the floor, she may well be in violation of somebody's patent.
When you see Google/Apple/Microsoft spending giga$ to acquire patent portfolios, it's not because they're short on brains: they need these patents to play the patent game. And that's so much money that's not being spent making better software for you and me.
Maybe this one? http://www.google.com/patents/US5443036