The Linux Defenders group are exercising the rights granted by the America Invents Act that was signed into law in September 2011 to identify and fight the patents that potentially threaten Linux and open source software. From the article: 'In a session at LinuxCon today, Linux Defenders director Andrea Casillas explained how the group is using rights granted by the new law to fight patent applications. A project of the Open Invention Network, Software Freedom Law Center, and Linux Foundation, Linux Defenders examines the 6,000 new patent applications published each week, attempting to identify those that are potentially threatening to Linux and open source. Then, the group looks for prior art that would invalidate at least some of the claims in the patents.'

In the past, “non-practicing entities” (NPEs), popularly known as “patent trolls,” have helped small inventors profit from their inventions. Is this true today or, given the unprecedented levels of NPE litigation, do NPEs reduce innovation incentives? It is estimated that  firms accrued $29 billion of direct costs in 2011 from NPE patent assertions.  Although large firms benefit from over half of direct costs, most of the defendants were small or medium-sized firms, indicating that NPEs are not just a problem for large firms.

"A piece in Forbes offers arguments on why not all 'Non-Practicing Entities' are 'Patent Trolls.'

Patent trolls are nothing new. In the nineteenth century, they were called “patent sharks” and they went after farmers in large numbers, armed with patents on barbed wire and sliding gates. Recently, patent trolls have become an issue in a way they haven't been for decades. This is because trolls are filing expensive lawsuits in a manner never known before. Over 5,000 firms were named as defendants in patent troll lawsuits in 2011. Patent trolls are wreaking a lot damage and there's a  reason for this: There has been a dramatic increase in the number of patents on software, and these patents are particularly prone to abuse, both by trolls and by other types of patent holders.

The question is where has the need for patents to be innovative gone? In this modern day do patents promote innovation, or simply protect firms from competition?"  Is there a right way to trade in patents for profit without abusing the process?

Since the 1960's  there have been arguments for and against software patents and the only point that both sides seem to agree on is that the current laws regarding software patenting need to be revised.  Recent court decisions have caused many to question whether software and computer implemented business methods are still patentable under U.S. law. The October 30, 2008 In re Bilski decision of the Federal Circuit caused many commentators to suggest that the age of software patents is over. The Supreme Court partially reversed this opinion in its Bilski v. Kappos opinion in June 2010. This means that some of the software and business method patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office over the last twenty years are no longer valid under the Bilski decisions.

Still, there are voices that say the patent system is essential to keeping innovation on track, in software and everywhere else. In a post at SmartPlanet, Manny Schecter, IBM chief patent counsel for IBM, points out that “patents provide inventors with the security to speak and publish freely about their inventions. Restricting or eliminating software patents will lead to less sharing of new ideas as people and companies reduce disclosure via the patent system and related publications. This will lead to less innovation, not more.” He adds that “patents should be awarded for all ideas that are truly novel, not because they take one form of implementation over another.”

The U.S Government Accountability Office urges more refinement of the patent laws and processes, calling for sharper definitions of technology innovations being submitted.  Timothy B. Lee, writing in The Washington Post, calls for something even more drastic than what GAO proposes: abolishing software patents altogether — as the government of New Zealand has recently done. One week ago, New Zealand solved this problem by introducing legislation that effectively eliminates software patents altogether.  It's a rare example of a government recognizing an issue and passing legislation bold enough to actually solve the problem.  So why can't the United States do the same?