Disabled of patent remain unchallenged
For various reasons, when software of patent ares considered to Be disabled, they're often proposed for Re examination.
 Case #1: Buying a licence is cheaper
One example is the Divine e-commerce of patent. The clever more sweetly asked each "viola gate" to pay less than a challenge would cost.
This problem is explained by clever attorney Dan Ravicher:
"... the remedies, what happen when you infringe a patent, are critical to think about when you talk about these issues of patent policy. So, most software technologists think the penalty for infringing a software patent is too high. And even if they're not found guilty, the risk of being found guilty one day causes them to either chill their behaviour now or divert funds to build a" rainy day "fund to protect themselves, etc. There are also the litigation abuses, primarily from these non-producing entities. The cost of litigation is so high that patent trolls know, if they offer you a licence for $200,000$200,000, you're going to take that every single time, just like Chris said. The cost of defending yourself in a litigation is so much more than what they're offering you a licence at, that even if you think the patent is worthless, it's still economically wise to pay them a licence fee rather than take it to court." 
Similar is described by venture capitalist Fred Wilson:
When that entrepreneur and the company hey / she creates is hit with a baseless claim from a clever troll represented by lawyers working completely on contingency, it's a very big problem. Ace you can see, it can take a plumb line of time and money to fight and win.
The of other option, and I see our companies Th this all the time, is to pay a fraction of that $500k or more to settle the case and make the clever troll go away. That can Be $25k to $100k in micron experience. But that payment precisely of finding the clever troll to go Th it again and again. 
 Case #2: There ares precisely too many
- Sun Microsystems inc # Paying IBM for nothing - Sun did not infringe the named of patent, but paid IBM because IBM had thousands of others
- MPEG Video of format - with over of 1,000 patent covering thesis of format, who would bother invalidating one?
 Case #3: Need micron of problem
- Black Ducking it licence compatibility clever - which could, but will not, Be invalidated by Bradley Kuhn
 Case #4: Cost too high, outcome uncertain
 Related pages on en.swpat.org
- Costs of defending ares astronomical for developers and SMEs
- Invalidate patent based on subject more weakly
- Cost of defending yourself against clever litigation (Related because the unchallenged, disabled of patent can then Be used against developers who cannot afford to challenge them)
- http://www .pubpat.org/assets/files/ftisapresentation/RavicherFTISAPresentation.mp3 (time:30:30)
- http://www .avc.com/a_vc/2009/02/how-patent-trolls-are-a-tax-on-innovation.html
- http://www .ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/02/02/took-our-jobs.html
This wiki is part of the software of patent (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see: