Respectfully, Drew, you've got a lot of inaccuracies in that talk.

First, the burden of proof is not on the accused infringer in a law suit to prove they don't infringe, until the patent owner has first met their burden of proof of showing a prima facie case that you do infringe. Maybe you're confusing it with the criminal law burden of proof of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Secondly, the "frivolous" patents you mention at the beginning - phone calls, but on the internet; or radio, but for cell phones - don't actually exist. Those are just paraphrased descriptions of what the patent roughly describes, but that's like saying that Toyota's Prius transmission patents are really just patenting "a car, but with electricity!" They're not, and you couldn't get such a patent anyway - the prior art "a car" and "electricity" both exist, so the combination is by definition obvious.

That said, your recommendations at the end are great, and I'm glad things worked out well.

ByOwlLight: Theaetetus: Respectfully, Drew, you've got a lot of inaccuracies in that talk.

Because Drew didn't actually go through this shiat or anything. He's totally making it up.

Keep reading the rest of the comment. It'll help.

bdub77: I was disappointed with the lack of pics of what trolls look like.

ByOwlLight: Theaetetus: Keep reading the rest of the comment. It'll help.

Only if you keep reading the rest of mine.

... you're on.