Sure, but I think there's a big difference between an innovative company actively designing and licensing technology–and a company being formed solely for the purpose of sitting on patents until they can sue a company for infringement.
Maybe I'm incorrect, but in the web 1.0 days, it seems patents were approved which are overly-broad ...
when you're simply conducting industry-specific business over the internet using standard technology and media, how does that pass the non-obvious test?
Thanks. From reading those comments I should clarify my comment a bit more. I don't suggest they make any contact, I am just wondering if they have considered the idea of licensing. I think that broad sweeping software patents are a result of the patent system not truly understanding modern computers but I do think there is an important place for the patent system to protect developers of new technologies. Sometimes, I believe that the idea of licensing gets lost behind the abuse of software patents in general.
Can you (or anyone here) recommend a good IP attorney?
"and knowledge that you appear to be infringing"
This is what I'm trying to wrap my head around. What defines "infringing"? The patent abstract covers some features that we do, but also some that we don't.
How much overlap is required before it's considered infringement?
Where are you located? It is best to get an attorney near you. I am in Massachusetts.
Whether you are infringing depends on how the patent claims are drafted. That I cannot tell you because I can't give legal advice.
If you want to learn for yourself before going to a patent attorney, pick up a law school textbook and start reading.
The law isn't hard. You just need to understand how the courts have interpreted the Patent Act.
IANAL but to my knowledge (multiple patents under my belt) if the patent covers A,B,C and you only implement A,B then you are fine. It depends how they have setup their claims though - some may be optional.
