You're saying he is protected somehow by patents? The minute he tries to sue he'll be countersued and the case will drag out until he is out of cash.
No, I'm saying that an abolished patent system- as the original comment suggested- is not the answer. A patent system gives even the smallest-capacity company an opportunity- and motivation- to invent and potentially profit from it. An abolished patent system would make the big easily pray upon the small, kill motivation, etc.
A better option would be to significantly overhaul the patent system with concepts such as "use it or lose it" (which forces all these patented concepts to go to market or become public domain). Even the smallest inventor player could produce a few of their inventions to go to market and thus protect their patent. The main idea of "use it or lose it" is to kill the current model of deep-pocketed companies buying up patents or patenting stuff they'll never take to market solely for defensive purposes (to protect their business "as is"). Thus, you have some of the best automotive battery technology patents owned and suppressed by big oil. And you have the "razor blade" business model which basically encourages the patent holder to use ever softer metals for the blades so they can sell more blades. Etc.
Ideas such as if a "medical treatment" patent can be the basis for a "permanent cure", the inventor of the latter gains a share of the former (as a cure is a better outcome for the public). I fear that cures for some of the major diseases may be laying in safes, because as we learned from the Polio vaccine, there is tremendous money potential in the short term with a cure, but little ongoing revenue. However, a "one-a-day" treatment is an endless money stream. If you are big Pharma and you invent a cure, do you take it to market, or do you try to back it down to a treatment? These kinds of profit motivations vs. public good could be addressed via patent reform.
And so on. Bottom line: abolishing the patent system is a loser, but evolving it so that it is generally focused on the benefits of the public- and not the big, deep-pocketed companies- is certainly needed. A fundamental problem is that the richest minority is so focused on keeping things the same (to protect cash flows as is), that the rapid progress forward is hindered. The current "patents for defensive purposes" model very obviously supports the status quo.
I'd love to see the "use it or lose it" effect hit, as the massive build up of defensive patents that would have to go to market or become public domain (which could then let someone else take them to market) would probably cause an innovation explosion... and get the world moving again.
