Un-fucking-believable

Craig hold a patent (not unreasonable in this day and age); Ricci was made aware Craig held that patent; They amicably settled for a reasonable, and small, amount.

What's the problem here? Spend your efforts writing to your members of parliament or donating to anti-patent organisations.

I'd have to hear the conditions of the license before I actually accused him of actually being a troll (p=30% in my book). I suspect the license actually was $1, 10% of revenue on a program understood to be freeware, 1 license to run the program should it become payed, 1 free beer should they meet, etc (fine in my book -- it's a defensive patent). But it could have been something that I would consider abusive. I just don't know.

I hesitantly accept the story as presented by these two business partners. But do I think it's "Un-fucking-believable" that someone would come to the opposite conclusion? Absolutely not. I do think it's puzzling that he doesn't realize that the ONLY thing we have to go on is his word and the word of somebody heavily incentivized to not badmouth him, and that this puts everyone else in a position of extreme uncertainty. That attitude smacks of "it's not trolling when I do it" and does slightly reduce the credibility of the claim. But only slightly -- I stand by my p=70% estimate that they're genuine and I can understand the frustration of having people assume the opposite.

I didn't meant that it would make legal action impossible, but that it might affect the outcome. E.g.:

- You collect a super small licensing fee from one entity and are attempting to extract a super large settlement from another.

- You (provably in court) know that Apple is infringing, but only decide to pursue action against Microsoft. This could affect, for example, you damage claims (i.e. your claims that MS owes you 'back dated' licensing fees).