The practice of intellectual property law was much simpler 25 years ago. Practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) was straightforward; the rules and procedures for patent and trademark prosecution seldom changed. The electronic revolution had not yet arrived to try and completely undermine copyright law. A two-person trial team could easily and effectively handle IP litigation because, back then, the scope of the paper discovery and complexity of a trial were readily manageable. Foreign IP disputes were almost unheard of.

But then, scientific developments, the Internet and subsequently the public electronic world, and, quite frankly, the drive for non-practicing entities (NPEs) and their lawyers to make money through patent litigation changed all that. NPEs are companies that make money by buying up patents and licensing them to others; they do not make or sell products.

The debate continues as to whether IP and unbridled IP litigation are means to encourage innovation by rewarding the innovators, or means for blocking innovation by preventing or discouraging others from using the technology or ideas to improve them further. Litigation costs and the ease of instituting frivolous IP litigation are seen as problems. Many disagree as to how the IP laws of one country can be used to punish activities occurring in another country. Critics question what may and may not be patented regarding biotechnology and business methods. The Internet has blurred the lines as to what information is free for all in the public domain or protectable by copyright law for the exclusive use by the copyright owner. The electronic workplace has made it easier for wrongdoers to take a company's trade secrets and other valuable information via flash drives and the like. There are countless other tensions.