4 ms·

You left out the rest of the qualifications: Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supp

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.
    - danilocampos 15y ago
      > So when Apple and Microsoft buy bankrupted company's patents and use them to sue Google Has this happened?
      - patrickaljord 15y ago
        Not Google but OEM yes.
        danilocampos 15y ago
        They're already suing manufacturers with patents they acquired two weeks ago?
        patrickaljord 15y ago
        They acquired Novel and others long before Nortel.
        danilocampos 15y ago
        You're doing an admirable tap-dance to preserve your Google partisanship here. Apple may have acquired patents before this but I'm having a hard time finding support for your assertion that they're trolling with those alone. Or even applying them at all as part of their patent litigation, as raganwald has pointed out elsewhere. Consider these patents cited in Apple's HTC complaint: http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/02/the-complaint-apples-patent-lawsuit-against-htc-is-all-about-android/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/02/the-complaint-apples-patent... Steve Jobs and Scott Forestall are mentioned as inventors in some, and plenty more are attributed to one Bas Ording, who is a UI designer at Apple. Even if fully half of Apple's patents in this complaint were acquired from an outside source, I have a hard time begrudging them their application of patent law in the protection of a business that makes a real product that required significant investment to create.
        15y ago

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.
  - danilocampos 15y ago
    > So when Apple and Microsoft buy bankrupted company's patents and use them to sue Google Has this happened?
    - patrickaljord 15y ago
      Not Google but OEM yes.
      - danilocampos 15y ago
        They're already suing manufacturers with patents they acquired two weeks ago?
        patrickaljord 15y ago
        They acquired Novel and others long before Nortel.
        danilocampos 15y ago
        You're doing an admirable tap-dance to preserve your Google partisanship here. Apple may have acquired patents before this but I'm having a hard time finding support for your assertion that they're trolling with those alone. Or even applying them at all as part of their patent litigation, as raganwald has pointed out elsewhere. Consider these patents cited in Apple's HTC complaint: http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/02/the-complaint-apples-patent-lawsuit-against-htc-is-all-about-android/ http://techcrunch.com/2010/03/02/the-complaint-apples-patent... Steve Jobs and Scott Forestall are mentioned as inventors in some, and plenty more are attributed to one Bas Ording, who is a UI designer at Apple. Even if fully half of Apple's patents in this complaint were acquired from an outside source, I have a hard time begrudging them their application of patent law in the protection of a business that makes a real product that required significant investment to create.
        15y ago