5 ms·

You have to be careful throwing around the "patent troll" label or it'll lose all meaning. Microsoft and Apple actively ship product. They're playing the paten

You have to be careful throwing around the "patent troll" label or it'll lose all meaning. Microsoft and Apple actively ship product. They're playing the patent game but they're also doing real shit that impacts users every day. This is a far cry from the Intellectual Ventures and Lodsyses of the world.

patrickaljord 15y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll#Etymology_and_definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll#Etymology_and_defi... > Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;
- tzs 15y ago
  Do you have an example of Apple doing that?
  - patrickaljord 15y ago
    Yes, the Nortel and Novel patent acquisition a couple of weeks ago.
    - raganwald 15y ago
      How is it that when Google bid for the Nortel patents, it was "defensive," but when Apple won, it was "trolling?" Perhaps Apple bought them so that Google couldn't use them defensively against Apple's own legitimate patents? Perhaps Apple bought them so that Google couldn't use them offensively against Apple? I am open to correction, but my understanding is that so far, the only suits Apple has launched against Android manufacturers (not Google!) are with respect to patents Apple has filed itself. Buying the Nortel patents doesn't mean anything one way or the other until such time as someone files a lawsuit based on one of the Nortel patents. Which is, you must agree, the second part of the definition you quoted, the "and then sues someone for violating one of the purchased patents" part.
      - patrickaljord 15y ago
        > How is it that when Google bid for the Nortel patents, it was "defensive," but when Apple won, it was "trolling?" Because Google never sued any one on patents without being on the defensive. Apple and Microsoft have a track record on attacking big and small companies on patents.
    - tzs 15y ago
      Who has Apple sued using the Nortel or Novell patents?
- danilocampos 15y ago
  You left out the rest of the qualifications: Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service; Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base; Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights; or Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers. I mean, sure, they respond to one of the criteria any time they buy a patent and later use it in a complaint that includes many patents, both homegrown and acquired. But I think it's reasonable to say that the rest of the criteria are a lot more egregious, especially when a company fits most or all of them.
  - patrickaljord 15y ago
    You left out the part where it says that a patent troll can be defined by any of these points. Therefore only quoting the one I did was enough to define Microsft and Apple as patent trolls.
    - danilocampos 15y ago
      But that's obvious. The point here is that patent trolling exists on a spectrum. While Apple and Microsoft may have a tenuous qualification, when I say patent troll most people who follow this stuff will think Nathan Myhrvold, not Steve Jobs. It's same way that calling both a jaywalker and a burglar criminals just because both have committed acts against the law dilutes the word "criminal."
      - patrickaljord 15y ago
        So when Apple and Microsoft buy bankrupted company's patents and use them to sue Google, they are not patent trolling? What are they then? Innovating? This is plain patent trolling and make those two companies effective patent trolls no matter how you try to turn the story. Even if they are innovating on other fronts. Just like I can save someone's life one day and kill someone the next day. That doesn't mean I'm not a killer because I'm a humanist on a good day.
- tedunangst 15y ago
  The citation for that line is a wordspy.com entry that distilled it down from several longer citations that, in context, make it clear the above definition alone is not sufficient.

patrickaljord 15y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll#Etymology_and_definition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll#Etymology_and_defi... > Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;

tzs 15y ago
Do you have an example of Apple doing that?
- patrickaljord 15y ago
  Yes, the Nortel and Novel patent acquisition a couple of weeks ago.
  - raganwald 15y ago
    How is it that when Google bid for the Nortel patents, it was "defensive," but when Apple won, it was "trolling?" Perhaps Apple bought them so that Google couldn't use them defensively against Apple's own legitimate patents? Perhaps Apple bought them so that Google couldn't use them offensively against Apple? I am open to correction, but my understanding is that so far, the only suits Apple has launched against Android manufacturers (not Google!) are with respect to patents Apple has filed itself. Buying the Nortel patents doesn't mean anything one way or the other until such time as someone files a lawsuit based on one of the Nortel patents. Which is, you must agree, the second part of the definition you quoted, the "and then sues someone for violating one of the purchased patents" part.
    - patrickaljord 15y ago
      > How is it that when Google bid for the Nortel patents, it was "defensive," but when Apple won, it was "trolling?" Because Google never sued any one on patents without being on the defensive. Apple and Microsoft have a track record on attacking big and small companies on patents.
  - tzs 15y ago
    Who has Apple sued using the Nortel or Novell patents?
danilocampos 15y ago
You left out the rest of the qualifications: Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service; Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base; Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights; or Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers. I mean, sure, they respond to one of the criteria any time they buy a patent and later use it in a complaint that includes many patents, both homegrown and acquired. But I think it's reasonable to say that the rest of the criteria are a lot more egregious, especially when a company fits most or all of them.
- patrickaljord 15y ago
  You left out the part where it says that a patent troll can be defined by any of these points. Therefore only quoting the one I did was enough to define Microsft and Apple as patent trolls.
  - danilocampos 15y ago
    But that's obvious. The point here is that patent trolling exists on a spectrum. While Apple and Microsoft may have a tenuous qualification, when I say patent troll most people who follow this stuff will think Nathan Myhrvold, not Steve Jobs. It's same way that calling both a jaywalker and a burglar criminals just because both have committed acts against the law dilutes the word "criminal."
    - patrickaljord 15y ago
      So when Apple and Microsoft buy bankrupted company's patents and use them to sue Google, they are not patent trolling? What are they then? Innovating? This is plain patent trolling and make those two companies effective patent trolls no matter how you try to turn the story. Even if they are innovating on other fronts. Just like I can save someone's life one day and kill someone the next day. That doesn't mean I'm not a killer because I'm a humanist on a good day.
tedunangst 15y ago
The citation for that line is a wordspy.com entry that distilled it down from several longer citations that, in context, make it clear the above definition alone is not sufficient.