4 ms·
You're confused thinking that a patent troll is just a non-practicing entity. A patent troll is not just a "non-practicing entity" - it's an organization that
by kbutler 10y ago
You're confused thinking that a patent troll is just a non-practicing entity.
A patent troll is not just a "non-practicing entity" - it's an organization that attempts to use a granted patent to charge tolls on a range of later invention which was neither enabled by nor anticipated by the patent.
There should be absolutely no incentive nor mechanism for patent holders to block and extract tolls from inventions they did not enable.
It's perfectly fine for a bridge builder to authorize someone else to charge tolls (a non-practicing entity), but it is unacceptable for an unrelated party (troll) to set up camp charging tolls on a bridge, just because they had an idea for a similar bridge somewhere else.
- wahern 10y agoExactly. In your definition a patent troll refers to any patent holder doing something you don't approve of, no matter that it's legal. IOW, the term is purely rhetorical, like pro-life/pro-choice, right-to-work, etc. Stopping so-called patent trolls could be done with real, substantive change, or it could be done superficially by rejiggering the rules so the system is less susceptible to easy criticism. That is, you can clamp down on patent trolls (i.e. high-profile abusers), without actually changing how easily patents are granted or the scope of what they encompass. And without changing the fundamental balance of power in the high-tech economy between small upstarts and large, established players. In reality, for young companies patent trolls are an imaginary boogeyman. A patent troll won't sue until you're actually successful. "Legitimate" patent holders are going to kill you in your crib. As an entrepreneur I'm far more concerned with the latter than the former. It behooves large corporations to keep the focus on so-called patent trolls.