It's actually a good idea if they get a foundational patent on something with no other alternative and fees higher than the troll is worth. In this case, they've... probably for buddies at DOD/NSA that fund them... created patents on encrypted messaging that they're using to sue everyone in a way that weakens security if dodged and still legal in U.S.. Plus the judgments cost a fortune.

I recommend big companies buy out the firms with foundational patents like this from back in the day. They already do in big-company acquisitions with patent portfolio being a big reason. Just an extension of that. Any other patent trolls they should squash. Plus these wherever they can. Buying is last resort.

> I recommend big companies buy out the firms with foundational patents like this from back in the day.

Would that be Nortel / Rockster Consortium approach? Sadly, big companies will be tempted to 'monetize' the patents and/or use them as a competitive advantage: and both are enforced via litigation. I supposed being sued by a big tech company rather than a patent troll is better?

The worst case is when a tech company buys patents, sells them to an NPE and then sics it on competitors, it's a good thing that'll never happen.

The ones being sued were deploying end-to-end secure messaging in widespread use. It would indeed be better if they had the patents and only sued other big players.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the markets and would INCENTIVIZED patent trolls to become a big enough target then just sell off their shares to the "do-gooders".

If you see below, I clarified what I meant, but admittedly just a thought expiriment. However, it would certianly not be dooggooders. It would be a group of self-interested companies colluding to kill patent trolls to protect themselves from future litigation. e.g. if you can't beatem join em. Which if such a strategy were workable, i would hath ideological confliction about anyway. But I guess, I am surprised (or am missing something key) about why this has not been done as they are going against very smart and very well funded companies, it is their business model.

Apple could buy the troll suing it hundreds of times over(although assuredly it isn't for sale now) so patent trolling could be limited if they were stopped within the mareket. It is already a risky investment as they must litigate smaller companies to prove the patents as they gain the crediblity to go after larger ones.

Small companies are fighting them in court, big companies are fighting them in court, it makes sense that we take the fight to the market, and hurt them financially as well.

My point is that this would not hurt them financially.

Once the trolls got enough publicity where this anti-troll group was going to try to take over the company then the trolls just sell their stock in the company (making $$$$$) and let the anti-troll group shut it down.

What? That just makes the incentives for patent trolling go up.

I approached it like a thought experiment, and it isn't really a workable strategy, especially not something I would argue should be eployed in perpetuatiy. It is an issue that should be handled legislatively, but in this thought experiment/hypthetical consider the objective an infinite game where the objective is war vs. patent trolls:

A patent troll typical incorporates a vehicle and often they are public. This limits their risk as they are not opened to lawsuites (as many companies) but in cases of partnerships it is sometimes possible to target the partners themselves. When they take what is essentially a SPAC[1] public, it is likely only insiders invest. They must disclose their assets and thus, the "portfolio" is what is taken public. Even outside investors are likley either people contributing patents, banks/fin inst. with knowledge of space/lawyers/esecutives executing strategy. This extremely high level of consolidation would make it much easier to manipulate their share price. This is some of what I suggested above. Either during the IPO, in the media, or during trading trying to negatively impact patent trolls to disuade them from existing. What I suggested orignally may not be the correct strategy, but the thought was that it could be possible and very situationally, cooperate in a market as consolidated as this to make the cost of trolling so high that it would be unprofitable or very risky, ideally legislation/patent reform would fix these problems but this would be the patch.

This would be a combination of hostile takeovers of companies, buying and open sourcing patents, and actively trying to make the risk and cost of capital so high, or an executives failure so humiliating there would be less people trying to raise, and the difficuly would go up substantially.

Obviously, massive market coordination would be very difficult, but it is considerably easier to do this if a company is neccessarily consolidated as (I suspect) trolls might be, given they aren't real companies and are quite niche.

Another possible benefit is that if a patent troll tried to dump a portfolio into another shell after a loss, or otherwise do something negative, a minority stake could bring lawsuits against the individual person. For example, a group of 10 troll execs would not think twice about started an identical company and moving assets packages there. If you were a shareholder of a real company, you wouldn't give away a lot of "IP" for free but they can, as they pass it to themselves or partners.

A minority, but legal sharholder, could sue the individual executives for breach of fiduciary responsibiltiy and other than raising the risk financially, personal individuals could face risk if not operating 100% above board.

[1] Special Purpose Acquision Vehicle

edit; Also, being inside would allow information to be accessed about internals. Outside investors could be found and outed (if actual entities) and tried in the media. E.G. if a hedge fund or firm had money in, they would be outed and scandalized for hampering innovation and PE & VC funds would refuse(if possible) their investments in future funds if they continued to fund such poor investments. A logical argument could be made to such hedgefunds as well, that it is possible for a risky mediocre return from a patent troll, they may actually cause damage to their own portfolio if one company is in the ecosystem or directly affected by a PT>

>It is pretty rediculous a company that is less than 2 years old can win a settlement for fucking twice it's market cap

No it's not. Regardless of what you think of them if they own IP that was used by another company to sell a product that generated hundreds of billions of dollars then they should be entitled to fair compensation regardless of their market cap.

iMessage came out in 2011, and was likely in development much earlier. this company incorporated in 2015. So, I understand what you are saying and it is why I noted problems with any one factor being used, but summarizing and adding what I said above:

* company does not have a product using the technology.

* company has not existed longer than the product infringing on their technology, and is not a whollly owned (or largely owned) subsidiary of another company.

* company is suiing for a sum larger than its own market cap.

* company wants an injunction placed on the "infringing" technology & ops.

* company awarded a sum 3x its market cap and is asking for a sum close to its market cap on top of that.

So, yes, I get it and noted it in a different comment, age and marekt cap alone would be bad for startups and imperfect metrics. I believe that if you consider the above points, there is a way to create scale/filter for trolls that would allow "real" companies to actually operate.

If a company has no product, and its primary source of revenue is from direct litigation and settlements, is new/has recently restructured itself, is a public company with highly consolidated holdings, and is a patent troll, it should be considered a patent troll.

edit: I was incorrect, they IPOd in 2015. They started suing apple(or the article I read referenced the suit) as early as 2013 so they are in fact older.