[marcosdumay]

If you are in the game, you have to play it.

You don't have to advocate for it, and you can advocate against it. But you may not have much a choice on playing.

Anyway, defending a patent requires some deep pockets, and if you don't defend them, they are just cost with no benefit.

Besides, the IBM legal team will come knocking, won't tell you anything that can let you understand why, and you will have no other option but to comply. How many patents you have, or if they actually have one that you are infringing isn't really relevant.

[drschwabe]

Good points

> Anyway, defending a patent requires some deep pockets, and if you don't defend them, they are just cost with no benefit.

unless you just need them for gov't grants that require them - in this case it's an investment into a pre-requisite and if the net capital from the grant is higher than the cost of the patent you got then hypothetically you are ahead; unless there are recurring/other expenses involved in 'maintaining' the patent that I'm not aware of.

[le-mark]

Can anyone comment on which government grants require a patent?

[neltnerb]

SBIR grants will see it as a positive if you have a potential monopoly. They want you to have a successful business and a valid exit strategy is to sell out the IP or license it.

Require is a strong word, it's just a strategy they recognize as valid.