[oconnor663]

We all hate patent trolls so much because there's no way to know whose patents we're violating before we get sued. But there are also cases where, whether or not we approve of the patent, everyone at least knows it exists. Like Apple patenting magnetic laptop chargers. Everyone knows that if you start selling a MagSafe competitor, Apple is going to sue you.

So one of the problems you have to solve if you create a NATO-like network of companies, is that one of your members might decide they want to go up against Apple. Now your organization has to decide what counts as a "troll" case and what counts as "you should've known". And since some industries are at a higher risk of trolling than others, those more expensive members will inevitably drive out the safer members who foot the bills but don't benefit very much.

So in the end you have problems somewhere in between an insurance company and...NATO :p

[manarth]

  what counts as a "troll" case

In general, "patent troll" refers to NPEs - Non Practicing Entities - companies that don't produce/manufacture/sell anything (except patent licences).

Most companies avoid patent litigation in all but the most severe instances, because so many people hold patents for the most obvious of things that they might well get counter-sued by the company they're suing. Mutually Assured Destruction in patent form.

NPEs don't have this concern, so they can send out all sorts of dubious claims without fear of countersuit.

An alliance against NPEs (with a rule preventing NPEs from joining) might well be worthwhile.

[crottypeter]

The law of unintended consequences says that our next problem will be "non-NPE trolls".

"We made a batch of 10 'somethings' last year, so we are not an NPE or a troll!"

[Natanael_L]

How do you sue a genuine NPE (just a patent holding company with lawyers) over patent infringement? Because that's going to be your only counterweapon, beyond funding litigation for members.

[MagnumOpus]

You don't sue an NPE for infringement (because they don't practice).

If you have deep pockets and a grudge, you would pay your legal team to try and have every single one of their patents/revenue streams invalidated.

[slimsag]

But, I mean, NATO must also make very similar decisions, right?

If a NATO nation gets 'attacked' by somewhat provoking a war, NATO must ultimately make some sort of decision about whether or not to jointly act (and foot the bill).

[di4na]

Yes but the treaty itself is pretty precise. You can look at it, but basically : if it is not a direct attack on the North Atlantic country sovereign soil, NATO do not have to do anything.

[dredmorbius]

NATO Article 5: Collective Defence.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_110496.htm

_Collective defence means that an attack against one Ally is considered as an attack against all Allies._

It has been invoked once. In 2001.

[BanzaiTokyo]

it is easier to determine if a country was attacked (the case of NATO) than if the petent holder is a troll (the case of anti troll alliance)