I don't understand how anything you wrote invalidates my argument. Yes, the inventor does not get the full settlement amount, but some money is still better than a lot of debt that they might end up with if going after IBM themselves.
Regarding the broadness of patents, my point is they don't advance technology or the sciences (the oft stated goal of patents), because they try to cover everything without revealing anything (a goal given to me by several patent attorneys in the patenting process). So what is their purpose?
> I don't understand how anything you wrote invalidates my argument. Yes, the inventor does not get the full settlement amount, but some money is still better than a lot of debt that they might end up with if going after IBM themselves.
As I agreed. However, you're wrong that a troll necessarily goes after the infringer you know about, and in fact they may not even bother.
Secondly, "broadness" is a term of art in patents. It doesn't mean what you think it does. It doesn't mean "advancing technology." It means the scope of things covered by the claims.
Regarding the broadness of patents, my point is they don't advance technology or the sciences (the oft stated goal of patents), because they try to cover everything without revealing anything (a goal given to me by several patent attorneys in the patenting process). So what is their purpose?