And, NTP, Inc. makes or sells no actual products.
I say that if you hold a patent, but never use it to produce something productive, then that patent should be held invalid.
"produce something productive" s/b "produce something useful" :-)
Some patents are obtained in order to close out competition. Not using a patent doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't something on the market that will do the job. If someone has a patent that they don't intend to use, make no similar products, and aren't attempting to license it to others then the damages for infringement should be "reasonable." I'm curious how NTP conjured up the amount of damages in this case.
Sounds like RAMBUS and the DDR lawsuits of a few years ago.
There are no other standards.