Recently written on Newegg successfully defeat a patent troll with some success, in part by taking the position that the company sand never agreement with the patent trolls. Many (probably most) of other companies end up making a cost-benefit analysis and realize that it is cheaper to pay and settle only. This is, of course, is

exactly

the patent trolls confidence. That's why we're in business. For businesses, it is a wise decision to resolve the short term. It may not be as rational long term, to accept the settlement can attract a growing number of elf costumes, and show a commitment to fight may frighten them. Moreover, the fight against patent trolls can lead to potential customers to be more happy to do business with you (and, if our observations are any indication, this struggle has kept loyal customers Newegg).

Ultimately, however, most companies really defend the trolls are mainly on principle. They really do not like the fact that the trolls come out with what they are destroyed, then they fight. We have seen, in some cases, as with Drew Curtis and Fark, but it's still a little weird.

Dan O'Connor gives an economic explanation of why Newegg has done is an important advantage for consumers, but also unlikely to ever be repeated enough for other companies to make a difference. This is why we need real reform of the patent system, rather than waiting for companies based on principles such as Newegg to cope with bullying. He returns to basic economics:

In economic terms, patent trolls busting bad is a "public good." In other words, the entire industry benefits when a sole proprietorship invalidate bad patents. Or, as Dan Ravicher of PUBPAT said in a

amicus

promptly paid for the pharmaceutical antitrust lawsuit

Find best price for : --trolls----Newegg--