[Sussex] Patent bites patenter.

[Andrew Guard]

Paul Tansom wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 14:09 +0100, Geoffrey J. Teale wrote:
> 
>>Paul Tansom <paul at aptanet.com> writes:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>>Either the power of their legal team will string
>>>things out so far that the other side runs out of financing, their legal
>>>team will run rings around what the other side can do (I may be being
>>>unfair here in assuming that the extra money buys better, or possibly
>>>less ethical, legal representation*), or they settle out of court for a
>>>sum that is good for the other side, but a mere drop in the ocean for
>>>MS. In whichever outcome it will merely be yet another example of big
>>>business being able to do whatever they want against the little guy - be
>>>that small business or customer.
>>
>>Interesting point.  One of the arguments made in favour of patents is
>>that the allow the little guys to protect themselves.  If this isn't
>>true in reality then the argument against patents is even stronger.
> 
> 
> In theory it should, in practise I don't think it does. If you have a
> patent and try to enforce it on a big co. when you are a little/tiny co.
> then you aim is to persuade them it is less hassle to simply license it
> from you. If they don't the likelihood is (from my understanding and
> reading) is that you run out of money and go under before the case is
> settled - someone then buys your assets (patents) for a discount price.
> 
> 

The best way of look at patent I have been told is this.  It only worth 
  how much you can afforded to spend to defended it.

So if all can afforded it 100 then it only worth 100.