I apologize for doing so. I think my idea of holding your own patent was not for the ability to counter-sue, but (and I am quite obviously not a lawyer) so you have a legal basis to petition for dismissal of the patent troll's suit. If there were any effective way to savage non-practicing entities, I'm sure we'd have fewer trolls out there.
My larger point is that, by vocally opting out of the patent game, the author of the original article has practically painted a bullseye on himself. Averring yourself to be above the fray seems to me to be a sure-fire way to be victimized yourself.
Defensive patent aggregation is about the ability to cross-license. If a troll isn't making anything, they don't need to license your patents.
Now, your own patent could in some circumstances be used as prior art against the patent troll... but if that's all you're using it for, why not just publish everything you're doing? Publications are prior art just as much as patents are.
> I think my idea of holding your own patent was not for the ability to counter-sue, but (and I am quite obviously not a lawyer) so you have a legal basis to petition for dismissal of the patent troll's suit.
What, exactly is this "basis"?
Note that a given thing can be covered by multiple patents, owned by different people.
Yes, patents can be prior art against other patents, but you don't need to own a patent to use it as prior art.
It would be a weak form of defensive patent aggregation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll#Defenses), but it would still be better than nothing.
My larger point is that, by vocally opting out of the patent game, the author of the original article has practically painted a bullseye on himself. Averring yourself to be above the fray seems to me to be a sure-fire way to be victimized yourself.