[sonthonax]

Would it be possible to create a corporate structure around a patent to disincentivize trolling?

Like if you set up a limited liability company that owns the code that's allegedly infringing on the patent, that then licenses out the offending code to you. But you structure the actual company as something you're buying a infringing service for a nominal fee under an SLA.

If that shell company has no assets, and you publicise that to the troll, that would be a major disincentive to actually suing you.

[0z8]

I don't think there's a loophole there. If you're making, selling, or using technology that is patented by another party, you're infringing, even if you aren't the creator of that technology.

[sonthonax]

What is the threshold for indirect patent infringement? For instance, I don't fear being sued personally for using Microsoft office (which I'm sure infringes on something).

[rhino369]

You can be sued for Office functionality. And you’d probably be the direct infringer.

It’s just an inefficient way to sue people and Microsoft would likely step in.

But it’s common to get sued for using functionality in open source software.

[0z8]

Not a lawyer, but as far as I understand there's no threshold or legal distinction between direct and indirect. It's all direct.

There's the angle of "how much $ can I extract" that comes into play, which is based on damages incurred from infringement. If you're not making money or preventing the patent holder from making money, you're not worth harassing.

[vnchr]

There's still the potential for extorting a settlement based on the business value of the patent to the operating company. But it does seem like that would mitigate risks to other assets, like you said.

[rpaddock]

Has anyone taken out a patent on being a patent troll?

Do that then sue all the patent trolls for infringing on the patent for being a patent troll...