Generally patent trolling is claimed when a company has never used the patents themselves (a non-practicing entity). Here IBM and Sears, iirc, created Prodigy w

Generally patent trolling is claimed when a company has never used the patents themselves (a non-practicing entity). Here IBM and Sears, iirc, created Prodigy which was innovative technically on several fronts. They spent a lot of resources solving problems and they got patents on some of those solutions. I think we risk legitimizing actual patent trolls by lumping them in with IBM's behavior in this case. That being said, I think the patent scheme is broken and "non-obvious" needs start meaning something again, not to mention that granting software (ed.) patents is so problematic. SSO serves the same function as a credit rating or identity verification service has served for decades. I'd call that non-obvious (applying a concept in one domain to a new domain), even if it took some serious engineering to implement that functionality "on the internet". But I also haven't read the patent. Another perspective on patents held by publicly traded companies is the perspective of the investors (admittedly an equally unpopular perspective). The person who invests in a company's stock knowing what IP that company holds has a legitimate interest in not letting those assets be devalued. With IBM, there's not a strong claim given that the licensing fees are rounding errors, but the principle is worth considering.