4 ms·
I think the issue will be in identifying who qualifies as a patent troll. Of course we know but what is a legal definition that would suffice and encompass all
by viraj_shah 14y ago
I think the issue will be in identifying who qualifies as a patent troll. Of course we know but what is a legal definition that would suffice and encompass all the companies that acts as trolls?
- mtgx 14y agoCompanies who have sued more than a certain number of companies (5?) in the past would be a good start, I think.
- viraj_shah 14y agoI'm sure Google and Apple and the other large companies fall into this category. I'm not sure I qualify them as trolls. Neither would the number of patents held by those companies qualify them either.
- beagle3 14y agoWell then, just open a few more shells so that each only sues four! We can keep playing definitions all day, but it's not going to help anything.
- techtalsky 14y agoPerhaps any company that doesn't actually have any other product or service? I agree it gets into tricky territory though.
- Firehed 14y agoA comment above addresses this well: shell companies, which is really the problem we should be fixing. Granted, the definition is probably still difficult to legally define despite how obvious it is when you're looking at one.
- whatusername 14y agoI've seen a number of people call CSIRO ( http://csiro.au http://csiro.au ) a patent troll based on the wifi case.