It is amazing at a time that patents and inventors are under attack on all sides, there is a movement to help this one inventor. This shows the patent debates are driven by emotion not logic.

The argument for the inventor here is freedom to contract. The licensor can agree to pay royalties after the patent has expired. The problem is what is the consideration (what is the inventor providing). The only argument for the inventor is that he would only sign the license if he received royalties after the patent expired. However, every long term contract, except perhaps a loan, each side has to provide value each year. Here the inventor is not providing any value. Competitors can produce the invention without paying royalties. If the Supreme Court agrees with the inventor it is likely to inhibit licensing deals, not encourage them.

What I think this issue is really about is whether patent terms should be longer than 20 years from the date of filing. I would argue yes, but the majority of pundits have been arguing for shorter patent terms, not longer. I disagree, but there is not enough space to present my argument here.