Do you remember how anti-abortion activists would put up a website listing the names and home addresses of abortion doctors? And every time one of them got shot, the activists would gleefully strike through the name of the doctor on that site?
It does happen. It happens to divorce lawyers too. If you choose a profession where you put people in the most stressful position of their lives and then abuse the system to unfairly take everything they have, a small minority of them try to kill you. It's not right, but it is true.
While the suggestion seems incredulous and amoral (because it is), it's not far fetched.
The code of law, the reason we have laws in the first place, is to prevent people from resorting to the exercise of "personal justice". This can manifest in many forms (like blood feuds and revenge killings). The problem with a situation in which there is no law is that it is on the whole unproductive to society, and usually tends to escalate to a point where no society is possible anymore (see medieval Italy and the feuds of the houses). Homicide and mutilation are often parts of such ancient justice practices (see medieval torture, killing and mutilation of thieves) because without the support of the society, extracting damage payments or justice in the form of incarceration is impossible or very difficult.
The Sumerian King Ur-Nammu is usually credited with establishing the first written code of law. But it was not until much, much later that an important addition was made in medieval england in the form of the Magna Charta, that established that before the law, everybody is equal, even the king.
Summerian codification of law enabled large civilizations to flourish by deflecting the destructive tendencies of large groups of people away from counter-productive behavior. Medieval English law enabled modern society to be possible by establishing that before the law everybody is equal, enabling such things as property, companies, and certainty of being treated fairly.
There is however an evil serpent hidden in law, which is that laws can be unjust. It's not just erroneous application of law that can be unjust, but the rules themselves can also be unjust. Usually on the whole law works because on the bottom line, averaged, it is more just than not. That is true because the number of unjust codifications was hitherto relatively small and errors by justice where statistically the exception, not the norm. And the entire judicature hitherto strives to keep it that way. Why?
There are many examples of where society ground to a halt and regressed to earlier states where law was subverted to be on the whole unjust (see many dictatorships, totalitarian states, corruption, etc.)
What happens when the law becomes unjust and justice cannot be served by law? Personal martial law comes back into effect. Things like revenge killings and blood feuds will become a problem for society again. Civilization as we know it will begin to crumble. The economy will go to the shitters. The works, you know.
Now tell me: This patent law that is hurting countless people by imposing money they have to pay to other people who have contributed nothing to what they did, is it just?
If that is not just, think about: How many people do you have to treat unjustly before the perception of law deterioates and earlier personal martial law comes back into effect? Nobody knows, but it's usually a bad idea to test it out.
The law has to be just, and patent law is not just. Keep on this path and it will be one coffin nail to destroy your society as you know it.
Put up another such site, starting with these guys: http://www.uniloc.com/index.php/company/