Sure -- my conditions were on the holder of the patent, not whether it can be sold.
In the case the patent owner isn't doing any R&D or engaging in economically productive activity (at all; nor esp. related to the patent).
I think we need, even a very minimal, condition here:
The government is only going to shake-down your competitor if you're actually in the same market. If you're just a guy hold a slip of paper, sorry, the government isn't your muscle.
They might be. All of this can be weighed by judges.
I'd be inclined to say: sorry, licensing/selling to companies not in the market is now not possible.
If you need to mitigate risk, insurance companies (etc.) can offer products against patents -- they still have value, just only now to companies actually operating in the relevant market.
And of course, "relevant market" can be read broadly by judges.
Either way, patent law is running amok over innovation, and goverment shake downs and money transfers from producers to rentseekers is a net loss for everyone.
In the case the patent owner isn't doing any R&D or engaging in economically productive activity (at all; nor esp. related to the patent).
I think we need, even a very minimal, condition here:
The government is only going to shake-down your competitor if you're actually in the same market. If you're just a guy hold a slip of paper, sorry, the government isn't your muscle.