&gt; So poor small time developer can&#x27;t sue any large company for a substantial payout because they can&#x27;t afford the $N x 1% fee? I don&#x27;t think that&#x27;ll work.<p>Do you think a small developer can sue a large company for substantial payout today? They cannot - litigation costs start at $100K and go north from there (Not to mention, filing and maintaining a patent costs a minimum of $20K-$30K). Today, when these lawsuits actually go to court, you have investors in the lawsuit - either someone financing it, or the lawfirm itself (&quot;contingency&quot;) is the investor. So things might change a little, but not by much.<p>If your invention is really worth $100M, and you can&#x27;t find a way to get $10M out of it -- then it&#x27;s not worth $100M. The problem with the current system is that it lets you claim (and believe) that it is worth that much.<p>&gt; The real solution to this is time. We&#x27;ll eventually get a new set of judges and legislators that understand technology. The former is all that&#x27;s really needed though their extended terms make change very slow<p>Every generation believes that things will change for the better once the older generation steps down. That has been wrong every single time, and I bet it will be wrong with respect to patent judges as well.<p>&gt; Once you&#x27;ve got level headed judges willing to throw out bullshit cases and impose punitive fees on trolls, this entire problem goes away. Until then, it makes financial sense for trolls to operate and even legitimate companies have to play that game to survive.<p>The problem is not trolls. Trolls are a (relatively) recent phenomenon banking on the brokenness of the patent system. They might go away with minor changes or a change of the guard -- I don&#x27;t disagree.<p>But what I argue is that the problem is much deeper - the patent system is broken by virtue of allowing the patenting of software, business patents, and other intangible processes -- as it is (even if all trolls disappeared tomorrow), it lets the incumbents (IBM, Intel, AT&amp;T, Microsoft, Google) kill any new competitor easily and cheaply, by virtue of holding a 100,000 strong portfolio of patents that shouldn&#x27;t have been awarded in the first place.<p>The fact no company has yet done this is not proof that the system is fine. See e.g. Shkreli &amp; drug pricing - the broken market structure was there all along, but the incumbent players raise prices slowly (albeit at 5x inflation) so it&#x27;s not noticed. But then Shkreli came along and did a fast-forward, exposing the system, which got everyone mad, and Shkreli retaliated against. The other players are not more fair - they are just more patient. And similar brokenness exists with respect to patents.