If small businesses, universities, and inventors can no longer invite licensing to large corporations, the likely place to turn to monetize patents are patent licensing companies. Recent court rulings encouraging patent litigation will feed the beast. But which beast? As litigation rises, serial infringers, notably large computer companies, will up the ante for inciting legislative patent "reform," intending to gut patent enforcement.

Congress should be reluctant to enact a major overhaul that significantly alter the dynamics of patent litigation. The courts have already demonstrated considerable incompetence in not comprehending the consequences of their decisions. Congress would be well advised to take that lesson. The best statutory reform would be to clarify the rules of patent engagement, biased only towards promoting invention, not particular players vested in the game.

Already, with the "principles of equity" doctrine denying injunctive relief to all but same-scale competitors, the patent business is more starkly a game of cold, hard cash. As patent licensing companies gain traction, with more patents to choose from, becoming more selective, only taking attractive quality prospects, better vetted patents hit the courtroom docket. Fewer junk patents in litigation would lift the patent-holder win rate, in time leading to quicker settlements. The upshot is that inviting litigation, as the courts have done, may end up stuffing dockets while lessening the number of cases going to trial.