That's why I think you're wrong about the importance of fighting software patents in Europe. The only way to stop them now is by setting up a situation where we're the only major country that permits them. At that point they will become a commercial liability to many companies, and it may be possible to gain the necessary support in congress.

You should never bring a precedent setting case you're sure to lose, just because it's a matter of principal. You're just making it harder for the court to see things your way later.

Berlind: For example who do you think will be the next big, high profile lawsuit?  Who will initiate it, and who will their target be?

Perens: So one of the things I've done as a strategic consultant is being an expert witness, where I read all of depositions that are made to the court reporter, I make my own findings and try to explain all of the technology to the Judge in my own deposition.  And then the Judge, the poor guy who usually is not a technologist can decide which expert he believes better, and make a decision on the case.  Well, experts like that have been recruited recently and I answered one of these recruiting calls and was told no you have a conflict of interest.  They were looking specifically for a linux expert and they told me well I have a conflict of interest.  Well, that means it must have been some anti-linux company that was doing the recruiting.  More recently we have heard Microsoft is recruiting so called intellectual property or patent engineers, and, they said that these engineers would be researching prior art.  But what I think they are actually out to research is existing infringement.  And I see the potential for Microsoft to bring a large number of patent infringement suits against linux and open source simultaneously.  In fact about two and a half years ago they briefed HP that they would be doing that, and they even said that the sendmail program would be one of their victims.  I mean we're getting into things less well known than linux and apache.  And they did not implement that plan.  Now part of that at the time might have been the anti-trust, which was going on both in the US and in Europe, part of that might have been that they found SCO to be their proxy, and that they wanted to hold back on software patent suits until they got the laws that they wanted in Europe.

Newsweek describes Intellectual Ventures this way:

... [a] quintessential company for the 21st century. It doesn't actually make anything: it outsources, offshores and offloads nearly every task performed by regular corporations. It has no factories, machine shops or marketing teams. Only patent attorneys populate the quiet hallways. The five-year-old firm's plan is to create or buy new ideas, accumulate patents--exclusive rights to use the inventions--and rent those ideas to companies that need them to do the gritty work of producing real products.

And describes their strategy:

Sources familiar with Myhrvold's strategy say that he has raised $350 million from some of the largest companies in high tech: Microsoft, Intel, Sony, Nokia and Apple. Google and eBay also recently invested. With this large bankroll, the company is out buying existing patents in droves. (Myhrvold won't comment on these activities, but sources say he has already purchased about 1,000 patents.) The strategy is to set up a sort of patent marketplace.

No clues given about who "might" be filing the case, where, when, and why someone going after linux would seek his help in filing it.

Is there something wrong with this website?

I was lead to believe that polite dissent was welcome and encouraged here.

You should have a banner on the first page of your website informing Potential Recruits that their comments will become hidden if they politely make critical comments.