The Original Patent Troll

Thanks for your comments. You know who nearly appeared in this 1994 video - Jerry Lemelson, but he had a conflict so we wrote him out of the script. In those days he "earned" $200M per year on royalties. We put in Dr. Gedunken instead. Mr. Lemelson's continuation practices lead to patent reform - 20 years from the date of filing. A monopoly is probably not possible, these days, with 1 patent, but check out the news about IV's taxing Intuit $120M over 10 years. Monopoly is a simplistic term.

The point about needing a broad patent is very important. This both makes it hard for a patent troll to attack your own IP... and ironically the more broad patents the more useless the patent system, and the more trivial the litigation.  We really need patent reform in the US.

There is a lot to like about this, much of the information is spot-on. However, the use of the "monopoly" is unfortunate and incorrect. An issued patent gives you no more of a monopoly than the title to your house gives you a monopoly. Patents are property rights, patent infringement is an act of trespass against your property. In some rare (very rare) situations, a patent property may have monopoly aspects - but there needs to be an analysis of market conditions and other appropriate inquiries.