Quote:
Originally posted by juicylinks
TBH i really do not understand why some individuals boycott or get upset with companies that settle.
Business is business.
|
Brutha Juicy, i agree with you.... if a business feels it's best for their business to license, then it's their decisions to do so.
The real issue here is when companies are being targeted for the indirect or contributory infringement (ie. affiliates, TGPers, etc) that don't directly infringe upon the patent, but yet, are targeted.
These guys have a harder time making the "business decision" to license, because it is more absurd, since they don't "use" the claimed patent.
Bigger companies with deeper pockets could fight, but as your personal experience has chosen, in the end, the lawyers are the ones that win out.
But when you have a space that has additional patent holders like SightSound and USA Video, there has to be a point, where despite paying lots of moneys to attorneys, that the winners in the end, are not just the attorneys, but to all companies that stand up and fight against what is wrong.
Acacia should be targeting the paysites, the Microsoft, CNN, Apple, etc of companies who "use" the DMT patent.
They can decide if they want to add another "Cost of Goods Sold" line item to their spreadsheets and pay the license.
When there is a large number of companies that are targeted by so broad of a patent interpretation, it has to strike a chord in some people, that fighting is necessary to "stand for something, or fall for anything."
Fight the Soapbox!