With all due respect to the blogger who wrote the article....
I was part of a group that (years back) were developing a product (safety oriented) that was way ahead of its time. In order to ensure we were clear to proceed we engaged a senior partner at Kenyon & Kenyon (one of the top intellectual property law firms on the planet) here in NYC. Our attorney listened to our presentation, took copious notes and ultimately loved the idea/product and hoped to shepherd us through the IP process so we could take it all to fruition.
Very long story short, K & K's Washington office turned up a patent on the books that they felt we'd be infringing upon and that was a show stopper. We negotiated with the patent holder to move forward in an exclusive licensing manner but the demands were ridiculous. Our attorney told us point blank that he would not advise us to pursue our product development and commercialization without an arrangement with the aforementioned patent holder. The risks far outweighed the rewards.....INCLUDING the risk of being personal liability. In some circumstances the "Corporate Veil" can be used to shield company officers in the realm of IP infringement but it's a roll of the dice; on a state by state law basis. Here's an example ....
In Orthokinetics, lnc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1986), the court wrote: It is well settled that corporate officers who actively aid and abet their corporation’s infringement may be personally liable for inducing infringement under § 271(b) regardless of whether the corporation is the alter ego of the corporate officer.
As the blogger states in his article ..."But, IMHO, for most small companies today, patents are just about worthless."
IMHO I'd take the advice of Kenyon & Kenyon over a blogger. Just sayin'.
HCTI + patents = $$$
