Actually, that's sort of the problem for Toyota. They got hit with a patent judgment over their hybrid vehicles in eastern Texas a couple of years ago. The plaintiff was awarded nearly $100 a vehicle as an on-going royalty (which is about 17% of Toyota's relatively slim profit margin).

So I agree. Kudos to Toyota for playing the game like it should be played. They got hit pretty hard and they needed to fight fire with fire. Good for them.

I don't know. I think I'd rather just file for bankruptcy and move on than be brought up on criminal charges.

The fundamental inquiry is whether you want a human in the control loop during a crisis. And I think the answer is unequivocally: it depends on the crisis. No mystery here. The answer has got to be a smart hybrid of the two systems. I have no idea whether Boeing or Airbus has a better hybrid system but would love to know.

As an aside, I hate the pilot vs. computer characterization. It's pilot vs. team of engineers. Let's not anthropomorphize the computer. It's not "making" decisions. It's just the difference between a human on the plane with little time to respond versus a team of humans not on the plane with a ton of time to think of various scenarios and simulate outcomes. It's not clear to me that one will always have the advantage.

No, a copyright protects your product from copying. A patent is a reward for (1) innovating; and (2) teaching others how to make and use your innovation. Probably the biggest misconception in patent law is that it's about stealing technology.

IAAL - a patent lawyer to be precise. Here's what I would love all jurors and engineers to know.

(1) A patent case is almost never about stealing someone else's technology. Most lay people don't understand this and think that if you've been accused of patent infringement it's because you stole their technology. (Note that the other side will still accuse you of stealing their technology.)

(2) Patent cases are civil cases and must be proven only by a preponderance of the evidence. This is not the "beyond a reasonable doubt standard" we hear about more often.

(3) Invalidity must be proven by a higher standard - clear and convincing evidence - because there is a (largely unjustified) presumption that the Patent Office got it right.

(4) The *claims* of a patent (those numbered paragraphs at the end) define the invention, not the stuff that comes before it. Just because the patent describes a particular device doesn't mean they are limited to that device. Read the claims. (There are naturally some subtleties here.)

(5) Major patent cases that involve fundamental technologies are like death penalty cases for companies because, if they are found to infringe a valid patent, the Court can order them to stop (called an injunction). This could naturally wreck your business. So even if you are 90% sure (which is an absurdly high confidence level) that you will not infringe or will invalidate a patent, it might still be completely rational to settle. By way of example, if I told you there was a 90% chance that you will cross a street and not get hit by a bus, would that inspire confidence? What if you had to cross the street 10 times a year? It doesn't mean you thought the patentee had a good case.

Anyways, there are a lot of these. This is a great idea.