Changes

:''“the licensee may often engage in a reverse hold up”. Reverse patent hold-up, loosely put, is where the accused infringer extracts zero (via infringing) license fee after the patent owner has sunk costs in developing :the patented technology and alleged infringement has taken place. Again, this occurs as patents are not self-enforcing. Implementers can simply use the invention covered by a patent and wait to get sued, using as :many diversionary tactics in the courts as is possible, knowing that it is hard, time-consuming, and expensive for a patentee to get an injunction. The judicial system is far from perfect; the patentee has few remedies :absent a courts intervention.'' (p.11-12)

jJ) '''Strategic Patents:''' Strategic patenting is sometimes defined as accumulating patents merely to achieve design freedom. These patents can be used as bargaining chips, rather than for their intrinsic value, and as such are largely welfare neutral, except in conjunction with transaction costs and cross- licensing agreements (discussed shortly). Much of the discussion of strategic patents takes place in the context of the patent thicket literature.(p.13):''“To obtain the rights to infringe patents held by external parties and to improve their leverage in negotiations with other patent owners, these firms amass larger patent portfolios of their own with which to trade.” – :Hall and Ziedonis (2001)'' K) '''Hold-out;''' Hold-out can occur in the context of multilateral bargaining, for example when different products can be made out of different, diversely-held patented technologies. Farrell (2009) explains that when a partial agreement benefits the “nonparticipating (holdout) player”, self-interest and social welfare may not be aligned. (p.12-13)