4 ms·

Question: if it means something other than NPE, then what vague definition of "abuse" should we be relying on? Because if a company is making a patented product

Question: if it means something other than NPE, then what vague definition of "abuse" should we be relying on? Because if a company is making a patented product, and someone infringes that patent, and the company sues them... and THAT'S patent trolling, then literally anything can count as patent trolling. No. Words have meaning. Stop trying to pervert their meanings for effect.

x1798DE 11y ago
I think the grandparent post pretty clearly demonstrated a pretty good definition: > Global is asserting questionable IP rights aggressively and counting on the high cost of defensive litigation to win, so we consider it a troll If they are deliberately using shady claims (e.g. clearly overly broad interpretations of their patent) and counting on the high cost of litigation to get their desired outcome, I don't see what it matters whether they are a practicing or non practicing entity.
- monochromatic 11y ago
  Every patent claim is questionable. Validity and enforceability are at issue in essentially every single patent case.
  - aidenn0 11y ago
    To me a patent troll has always been the patent equivalent of a SLAPP. Where you file not based on an expectation of winning, but that it will be less expensive for the defendant to settle than to fight the suit and win.
JoshTriplett 11y ago
Few people would describe RSA as a patent troll. Few people would describe Intellectual Ventures as anything but. In between, there's a wide spectrum of entities with varying degrees of contribution, sympathy, and abuse. Whether any particular litigant qualifies as a patent troll depends heavily on who is speaking. As far as definitions of "abuse", for one definition, see http://patentlyo.com/patent/2011/09/rader-patent-litigation.html http://patentlyo.com/patent/2011/09/rader-patent-litigation.... : 'someone simply seeking litigation-cost settlements, or, in other words, "any party that attempts to enforce a patent far beyond its actual value or contribution to the prior art."' Newegg provided another clear and concise definition; both seem quite reasonable. The phrase "foam-arrow lawsuit" suggests rather strongly that those definitions probably apply here. The phrase as used by Newegg had the desired effect with their target audiences. And if using the phrase "patent troll" contributes to increased vilification of offensive patent use in general, I don't have any problem with that, either.
- monochromatic 11y ago
  > The phrase as used by Newegg had the desired effect with their target audiences. Exactly my point. It's using a dirty word in an unusual way to cast aspersions. > And if using the phrase "patent troll" contributes to increased vilification of offensive patent use in general, I don't have any problem with that, either. One man's "offensive" is another man's ordinary.
prutschman 11y ago
Here's a definition of abuse: filing a lawsuit they don't expect to win on the merits, but offering to settle for an amount small enough to make settling rational in the short term for the victim.

x1798DE 11y ago

I think the grandparent post pretty clearly demonstrated a pretty good definition: > Global is asserting questionable IP rights aggressively and counting on the high cost of defensive litigation to win, so we consider it a troll If they are deliberately using shady claims (e.g. clearly overly broad interpretations of their patent) and counting on the high cost of litigation to get their desired outcome, I don't see what it matters whether they are a practicing or non practicing entity.

monochromatic 11y ago
Every patent claim is questionable. Validity and enforceability are at issue in essentially every single patent case.
- aidenn0 11y ago
  To me a patent troll has always been the patent equivalent of a SLAPP. Where you file not based on an expectation of winning, but that it will be less expensive for the defendant to settle than to fight the suit and win.

JoshTriplett 11y ago

Few people would describe RSA as a patent troll. Few people would describe Intellectual Ventures as anything but. In between, there's a wide spectrum of entities with varying degrees of contribution, sympathy, and abuse. Whether any particular litigant qualifies as a patent troll depends heavily on who is speaking. As far as definitions of "abuse", for one definition, see http://patentlyo.com/patent/2011/09/rader-patent-litigation.html http://patentlyo.com/patent/2011/09/rader-patent-litigation.... : 'someone simply seeking litigation-cost settlements, or, in other words, "any party that attempts to enforce a patent far beyond its actual value or contribution to the prior art."' Newegg provided another clear and concise definition; both seem quite reasonable. The phrase "foam-arrow lawsuit" suggests rather strongly that those definitions probably apply here. The phrase as used by Newegg had the desired effect with their target audiences. And if using the phrase "patent troll" contributes to increased vilification of offensive patent use in general, I don't have any problem with that, either.

monochromatic 11y ago
> The phrase as used by Newegg had the desired effect with their target audiences. Exactly my point. It's using a dirty word in an unusual way to cast aspersions. > And if using the phrase "patent troll" contributes to increased vilification of offensive patent use in general, I don't have any problem with that, either. One man's "offensive" is another man's ordinary.

prutschman 11y ago

Here's a definition of abuse: filing a lawsuit they don't expect to win on the merits, but offering to settle for an amount small enough to make settling rational in the short term for the victim.