YummyTempura

In theory it would, but if the company fighting the troll loses, surely that would mean they'd need to pay the troll's legal fees also?

There are certainly some good points covered here, and it looks like it would be better than the current status quo of extorting payments as "settlements" when one party can't afford the legal fees.

I do wonder if all these new measures will head us into a situation of patent entrenchment though, whereby patents already granted to (or subsequently acquired by) the biggest players actually increase substantially in real values due to the greater difficulty in getting new patents granted.

What I'm sure a lot of us would like to see is a better means by which to invalidate existing patents that have become standards-essential. Of course, the problem then is that you're seen as effectively punishing the most successful of ideas (in reality a lot of those patents should never have been granted in the first place).

This has become a longer response than I intended. Hopefully someone eminently more knowledgable on this will be along to solve the problem shortly!

i think the "server down" message on your website right now probably speaks as loudly to the topic at hand as any comment here.

More importantly I feel like this story has been told already a hundred times.

Im more compelled by the reasons people either stick with or move to ASP.NET. I would agree that for a great many use cases there are potentially better and less costly tools than this stack, and as a .Net contractor by trade I'm (privately) one of its biggest critics. But big (non-tech) businesses love Microsoft (rightly or wrongly), and as a result, in my local market i can provide for my family a lot better by staying put.

I appreciate the benefits of being at the cutting edge, but I feel there are hidden costs for some that aren't obvious.