This is a largely pointless gesture.

Patent trolls by definition have no assets (technically they're NPE or non-practicing entities). This means that if they lose big, they'll simply declare bankruptcy and move on.

The real problem--still--is software patents shouldn't exist at all.

If a single device (eg a smartphone) potentially infringes on thousands of patents then you've gone well beyond the intent or usefulness of the patent system.

If this were going to do anything at all, any entity that files a patent violation suit should be required to establish a bond (set by the court) to cover defendants' reasonable fees before the suit can even go to discovery.

The maths of patent trolling is simple:

- filing suits, issuing C&Ds, etc = $X million

- potential payoff for settlement or successful litigation = $YYY million

- probability of winning = Z%

If Y x Z > X then it's worthwhile suing. Filing a bond with the court then change sthis to Y x Z > X + B.

Personally, if software patents can't be done away with or at least reduced in its length, then I would like to see a couple of things happen:

1. When sued, a defendant has the right to request a review of the patents, which would automatically stay all proceedings until the review is finished. Only upheld patents could then be litigated and if all patents were overturned, then the plaintiff would have to pay all court costs.

2. Patents holders who sue but do not actually manufacture anything should be awarded reduced damages.

Wouldn't it be simpler to require that any company suing over patents must also be an active practitioner in the field(s) that the patents involve?

That would kill the asset-free trolls instantly because without an engineering staff and a product they can't very well be building anything that uses their "property", can they?

This seems like a step in the right direction. In the UK, as far as I'm aware, this is standard procedure in ANY legal case. The loser has to pay the legal fees of the winner. This can be a double-edged sword however. A big legal firm with lots of resources will mount legal fees that they alone can crush any small company.

This is one aspect that I see missing from this. The mere threat to sue over a patent can force a small company to settle or to even close-shop completely. Sure, if the small company wins, they'll get their legal fees back, but when would that be?? a good few months of time, energy, lack of sleep, and huge legal bills until the end of the process, and that's only IF they win.

The reason that the American government hasn't implemented this broadly in legal disputes, as is practice in other countries, is that it makes it dangerous to pursue legal action for any entity. If I am a lone engineer who has just invented the perfect fuel source and GE rips it off, I have no recourse, because they can hire $50 million worth of lawyers and if she can't beat them in court, she's stuck with an impossible bill. These laws unfairly stifle the little businesses who are "supposed" to have a fair footing in the unbiased court of laws.

I know most people here favor abolishing software patents.

My take is that they shouldn't be abolished. But they should be restricted. Say, 3 years. Maybe 5.

Software has short development cycles and version iterations. Three years gives a company a year to bring a product to market, and 2 years of patent protection after that.

This isn't perfect I'm sure and there are probably more optimal time frames than 3 years. But I like the idea that if I come up with a truly novel invention in code, I'll be granted a patent and a couple years at market before the clones emerge.

Whilst the motives are good it realy should be a simpler bill:

`If you take somebody to court and you lose the case then you pick up the cost of the defence and courts time.`

That is what is needed, something simple and fair that covers this and other area's instead of one law for a specific area which will then need another law for another area and in essence complicate things by having many laws covering one simple thing.

Keep It Simple Stupid is a such a great old software term, that applies to so many things, including this.

Has anyone ever read this? http://www.amazon.co.uk/Math-You-Cant-Use-Copyright/dp/08157...

How would this actually work? Unless a bond has to be posted the troll would just make sure the trolling entity (almost always a separate company shielding liability from true owner) has zero assets to pay the legal bills. Or did I misunderstand something?

I like it. If it works then it should cut down on these stupid spectacles. If it does not work then it only would further the cry of "See? We need total reform!"

I like this alot:

In other words: just because we're defining "software patent" doesn't necessarily mean software patents are necessarily legal.

It's basically a temporary fix.

This post was second after the one to Mark Zuckerberg when I clicked it, and for a second I thought it meant Bill Gates was doing it. I boggled for a second at the idea of Mr Microsoft being sane about patents, but of course it was my error. Pity.

Maybe I'm crazy but it seems there is a relatively simple solution to all this: make patents non-transferable.

This is the way things should always have been. If you're going to falsely claim patent infringement only for it to be discovered you're not the patent holder or are merely using scare tactics to get money out of people you should be held liable for all costs associated with the legal threat.

Why restrict this to just patent trolls?