Well, if it's true that he's licensed AND fighting it, I have a bit more respect for his position.
You dont really have to understand the technical aspects, this is about intellectual property and patent law.
The patent system in the U.S. is screwed. It forces you to use the court system. You can patent absolutely anything, no matter how ludicrous it is. If there wasn't already a patent on file for the television set, I could go file one right now. I could then demand everyone selling television sets to pay my license and royalty fees to use my technology.
You see, the patent office doesn't do any screening of the patents. No matter how obviously full of shit the guy filing it is, they'll take it. They leave it up to the courts to decide whether it is valid. So if you have a valid patent, you need an army of lawyers to defend it. Likewise if someone comes after you for infringing upon a bullshit patent, you need lawyers to fight it and get it invalidated. See a trend here as to who the only real winner is?
If you're granted a patent, you must pursue those who infringe upon it to enforce it's validity. This is done via licensing and law suits. Likewise if someone comes after you for infringing upon their patent, your only recourse is either pay them or fight them in court.
A good patent can be worth a fortune, but you may have to spend millions in lawyer fees before you ever begin to reap the benefits. This is why many marginal patents get sold to companies like Acacia. But on the other hand, the patent law system is wide open to being treated almost like extortion. If you can grab a patent for something that everyone is using and cant live without, then you can put everyone in the position of either having to pay you or pay lawyers.
Easiest way to fix it would be same you fix a lot of problems with our court systems. Implement a law whereby "loser pays" for all court and lawyer fee's. You'd get a lot less bullshit in the court system.
|