I think they would love to license it, but several large companies insist it isn't worth of licensing and, in the opinion of VPLM are infringing, just like Ford was knowingly infringing on the wiper technology. The accused infringers are denying that they need to license what VPLM has patented. That is the crux of this whole issue. The idea is that when you develop an improvement and get it patented, the new technology will be utilized by manufacturers and an agreement can be made (usually formulaic) pertaining to the relative worth of the component to the overall whole assembly.
Let's say that I figured out a way to navigate in outer space in such a way that a space vehicle would never get hit by space garbage and that this method reduced the weight of a satellite or manned vehicle by a thousand pounds which (for argument's sake) saved $50,000,000 per launch and reduced the likelihood of an accident by 90% adding an additional $20,000,000,000 in net present value in savings to NASA, SPACEX etc. Are you saying that only people who can build a rocket and get something into outer space should be able to monetize that development. That I, the person who came up with this advancement, should only benefit from the advancement if I start my own space program. That seems to be what you are arguing, which seems pretty far fetched and removed from how other patents are monetized.
Now if I was a simple inventor worth $500k and the Space companies were worth billions, how hard would it be for them to tie me up in court claiming all sorts of semi plausible reasons why my advancement deserves nothing and I am a patent troll, until I needed to give up.
David vs. Goliath 101, and to a lot of us, this seems to be where we have arrived.
Some of us are willing to throw a few thousand dollars at this issue to see what happens. One thing is certain, it hasn't easily gone away.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
