[73995] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dan Hollis)
Fri Sep 10 05:21:15 2004
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 02:20:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: Dan Hollis <goemon@anime.net>
To: Joe Rhett <jrhett@meer.net>
Cc: Matthew Sullivan <matthew@sorbs.net>, <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20040910085449.GE6390@meer.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Joe Rhett wrote:
> > 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.
Do you have an example of such a case?
-Dan
