[73993] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Rhett)
Fri Sep 10 04:56:19 2004
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 01:54:49 -0700
From: Joe Rhett <jrhett@meer.net>
To: Dan Hollis <goemon@anime.net>
Cc: Matthew Sullivan <matthew@sorbs.net>, nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: Dan Hollis <goemon@anime.net>,
Matthew Sullivan <matthew@sorbs.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0409100035060.4750-100000@sasami.anime.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Joe Rhett wrote:
> > In short, if you want to make money selling your patent to someone then you
> > must have a valid business that loses money so that your lawsuit against
> > them will have teeth.
On Fri, Sep 10, 2004 at 12:46:07AM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
> So the attorney creates an IP holding company to which the patent is
> assigned, and the company offers to license the patent to Verisign.
> When Verisign refuses, they get sued for lost revenue.
The holding company must be making money from the patent to demonstrate the
value of the loss. It can't be a silent owner -- these have been fairly
routinely tossed out of court as meritless.
> There are companies whos entire revenue stream revolves around licensing
> patents / litigating. This is quite normal.
Yes, but they use complicated techniques of licensing and subcompanies with
demonstratable revenue to achieve those goals. It's not as simple as was
suggested here.
--
Joe Rhett
Senior Geek
Meer.net
