3 ms·

Not... quite. People criticize the patent trolls that are using generic/obvious patents that somehow got approved when they should have been rejected. "Interf

by Nadya 11y ago

Not... quite. People criticize the patent trolls that are using generic/obvious patents that somehow got approved when they should have been rejected. "Interface for opening a door by use of hand and twisting motion" (aka: a doorknob) Those types of patents. The ones worded ever so carefully as to try and sneak by being declined. When people refer to patent trolls they are mostly referring to the companies that purchase the rights to these kinds of patents and go on a litigation hunt of any big fish they find infringing to try and sucker out payments. I do not see it as patent trolling when someone who say... invented a jetpack and has a patent on the technology in use going through a firm to sue an infringing superbody who has infringed upon the patent to sell their jetpack because they can mass manufacture and undersell the small business. That's what I see as a "legitimate use" of patents. On the other hand, "Backpack to be worn to fly through the air through means of jet propulsion technology" (aka: jetpack with no working functionality patented) is not a legitimate patent in my eyes and is sat on to prevent anyone from making jetpacks because the moment they invent a jetpack they'd be sued. That's what stifles innovation.

throwawaykf05 11y ago
As with my reply to monochromatic, I guess the issue here is the definition of the term "patent troll". People often use the term anytime a patent they don't like is asserted. However, studies suggest that patent trolls don't assert patents any worse or better than those that practicing entities assert. See for instance, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1792442 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1792442 for a limited by illustrative empirical study which also references several other related papers. This study also indicates that NPEs are probably a significant avenue for assertion of patents from individual inventors. I will agree that there is a substantial patent quality problem, with a number of overly broad and poorly-defined patents being asserted by firms, non-practicing or otherwise. However, from my observation over almost a decade, I would also say that this problem is declining rapidly, as most of these patents were issued during a period when the PTO had no idea how to deal with them two decades ago.

by Nadya 11y ago

throwawaykf05 11y ago

As with my reply to monochromatic, I guess the issue here is the definition of the term "patent troll". People often use the term anytime a patent they don't like is asserted. However, studies suggest that patent trolls don't assert patents any worse or better than those that practicing entities assert. See for instance, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1792442 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1792442 for a limited by illustrative empirical study which also references several other related papers. This study also indicates that NPEs are probably a significant avenue for assertion of patents from individual inventors. I will agree that there is a substantial patent quality problem, with a number of overly broad and poorly-defined patents being asserted by firms, non-practicing or otherwise. However, from my observation over almost a decade, I would also say that this problem is declining rapidly, as most of these patents were issued during a period when the PTO had no idea how to deal with them two decades ago.