While in law school, in attempt to defray tuition costs, I would order Livestrong style silicone bracelets and sell them at Daytona Beach bike week. After tinkering I began working with the manufacturer to mold the silicone bracelets with RFID chips and file a patent.
As a law student, I found the patent filing process to bring real world practice to my classroom theory, plus I learned a lot about RFID technology in the process (mostly researching prior art, such as, RFID shopping carts; RFID one time use hospital bands; ect...). However, as a law student I had no practical (financial) way of bringing my idea to market.
Nevertheless, I contacted Disney's director of park operations to discuss the potential of my RFID silicone bands acting as park tickets, monetary accounts and the general efficiency RFID bands could have of park operation efficiency (tracking lines, ride times, open seats, ect...). As one might expect I was blown off, given a nice generic response that there is no interest...but sure enough 7-8 years later the parks have incorporated RFID technology through the use of...silicone bands.
I think such a story highlights the various positions one could take on our patent existing system. Some might say I was a patent troll, filing a patent where I knew I could never financially bring a product to market, others would argue that situation is why patents exist where the inventor needs to protect an idea where often times but for being the inventor/patent filer a giant corporation might come along and simply take an idea without any benefit to the inventor...finally some may say I should not have received a patent in the first place as RFID silicone bands are not non-obvious in the first place.
Though I never sued, my own experience brings a certain bias to the table, and I would simply ask in countries that do not have a similar intellectual system to the US, is there an example of an inventor actually bringing an invention to market where they were not simply beat out by an existing corporation?