nanog mailing list archives
Re: Verisign vs. ICANN
From: Joe Rhett <jrhett () meer net>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 01:54:49 -0700
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
Current thread:
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Matthew Sullivan (Sep 09)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine (Sep 09)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Dan Hollis (Sep 09)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Joe Rhett (Sep 10)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Dan Hollis (Sep 10)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Joe Rhett (Sep 10)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Dan Hollis (Sep 10)
- Re: Verisign vs. ICANN Joe Rhett (Sep 10)