1. It's all about underlying incentives. Short term those will always counsel early settlement, if there's enough awareness and collective action to take the long-term view, then we might be able to push incentives in another direction.

2. Some of the existing collectives combine their IP assets to give each other a license to each other's patents or the benefit of any future settlements, which limits the exposure a bit. Not sure if something like underwriters of patent troll insurance could combine the incentives enough into long-term view to make that worthwhile.

The same Google that did this: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/inventor-says-go...

:thinking:

The reasoning here was that if they didn't patent it, some other bad actor / patent troll would, and that would cause far more problems. Google so far has a record of never using a patently offensively, and only time will tell if this will keep holding true.

Google also has a giant shared patent pool that they let other companies use to defend themselves, so this is part of that, alongside the article I shared.

> Google so far has a record of never using a patently offensively

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/07/waymo-drops-most...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-google-bt-lawsuit/google-...

Those are both responses to first being attacked.

BT attacked Google with a patent lawsuit in 2011. And Google certainly held the belief that Uber was acting quite nefariously toward Waymo.

Punch someone in the face, do not be surprised if they defend their self and come back at you.

Those are examples of using it defensively. They use patents to defend themselves against lawsuit.

In this case, anyone is free to use the algorithm, and Google won't go after them with the patent.

The Waymo vs Uber one wasn't a defense against a lawsuit.

There is no legal necessity to patent first, only to publish first if you're only using it for straight defense.

patent troll defense as a service: https://www.unifiedpatents.com