4 ms·

The 'insider' complaining here is -- Oracle?? That would be the Oracle that is No. 58 in the PTO's list of the top 100 most prolific patenters? Who is the troll

by jaxhax 12y ago

The 'insider' complaining here is -- Oracle?? That would be the Oracle that is No. 58 in the PTO's list of the top 100 most prolific patenters? Who is the troll here?

ScottBurson 12y ago
Number of patents filed doesn't by itself mean anything. These days, companies have to amass large patent portfolios for defensive purposes, if nothing else. Failure to do so would get them sued by their shareholders. The question is to what extent they use their patents aggressively, and how good a case they have when they do so. I don't know the answer in Oracle's case (and I'm no great fan of the company) but again, mere numbers of patents won't tell you that.
throwawaykf05 12y ago
1. Having patents and enforcing them does not make you a troll. It's generally understood that trolls are non-practicing entities. Unfortunately, people frequently use the word as a derogatory term for "someone who uses patents in a way I don't like" (which often really means "someone who uses patents for their intended purpose, which I don't like on principle"), making it lack any real meaning. 2. That someone as litigious as Oracle was supporting this should tell you something: that this effort had little to do with "reforming patents" and more to do with "large corporations managing risk".
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  > Having patents and enforcing them does not make you a troll. It's generally understood that trolls are non-practicing entities. Apple and Microsoft have managed to turn that line thoroughly into mud by weaponizing patent trolling as a tool to wage proxy wars. > Unfortunately, people frequently use the word as a derogatory term for "someone who uses patents in a way I don't like" (which often really means "someone who uses patents for their intended purpose, which I don't like on principle"), making it lack any real meaning. Patent trolling as a practice has quite clear contours: The perpetrator alleges patent infringement and demands a license fee which is less than the cost of proving non-infringement or patent invalidity in court, leaving the victim having to either pay the troll the Danegeld regardless of infringement or pay even more to their own lawyers to prove otherwise. > That someone as litigious as Oracle was supporting this should tell you something: that this effort had little to do with "reforming patents" and more to do with "large corporations managing risk". Your explanation is belied by the number of patent nastygrams received by startups that can hardly be described as "large corporations." That we see Oracle on the side of reform next to the likes of Red Hat and the EFF only goes to the severity of the problem.
  - fpgeek 12y ago
    > Apple and Microsoft have managed to turn that line thoroughly into mud by weaponizing patent trolling as a tool to wage proxy wars. Which is why I favor calling them patent ogres, not patent trolls. What Apple and Microsoft (most notably among others) are doing is different, but similarly troubling.
    - rayiner 12y ago
      Apple and Microsoft own an NPE: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockstar_Consortium http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockstar_Consortium
      - throwawaykf05 12y ago
        Rockstar claim to have made commitments to the DOJ and FTC to operate independently [1]. What do you make of that? 1. http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=2a10f894-6812-44b5-a01c-d64562c4310f http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=2a10f894-6812-4... (ctrl-f "commitments")
  - throwawaykf05 12y ago
    > Apple and Microsoft have managed to turn that line thoroughly into mud by weaponizing patent trolling as a tool to wage proxy wars. 1. Apple and MS have historically sued competitors with their own patents, which typically they practice themselves. 2. The only conceivable "proxy" may be Rockstar, and they claim to operate independently. If they didn't, well, the DOJ and FTC would be mighty interested [1]. >Patent trolling as a practice has quite clear contours:... And my point was, Oracle clearly don't fit the bill. Heck, even IV don't fit that bill, because they apparently ask for pretty large licensing fees. >Your explanation is belied by the number of patent nastygrams received by startups that can hardly be described as "large corporations." Outside of cherrypicked media reports, there is insufficient empirical evidence that trolls target startups. I've been tracking trolls for a while, and trolls that go after the little guys are actually rare. The moment they do, there's inevitably some media outrage, and the number of unique trolls so far have been few (lodsys, scanner trolls, WiFi trolls... Fotomedia / photo sharing trolls about 7 years back... Any more?) By and large these pick on larger companies, because that's where the big money is. 1. http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=2a10f894-6812-44b5-a01c-d64562c4310f http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=2a10f894-6812-4... (ctrl-f "commitments")
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by jaxhax 12y ago

The 'insider' complaining here is -- Oracle?? That would be the Oracle that is No. 58 in the PTO's list of the top 100 most prolific patenters? Who is the troll here?

ScottBurson 12y ago

Number of patents filed doesn't by itself mean anything. These days, companies have to amass large patent portfolios for defensive purposes, if nothing else. Failure to do so would get them sued by their shareholders. The question is to what extent they use their patents aggressively, and how good a case they have when they do so. I don't know the answer in Oracle's case (and I'm no great fan of the company) but again, mere numbers of patents won't tell you that.

throwawaykf05 12y ago

1. Having patents and enforcing them does not make you a troll. It's generally understood that trolls are non-practicing entities. Unfortunately, people frequently use the word as a derogatory term for "someone who uses patents in a way I don't like" (which often really means "someone who uses patents for their intended purpose, which I don't like on principle"), making it lack any real meaning. 2. That someone as litigious as Oracle was supporting this should tell you something: that this effort had little to do with "reforming patents" and more to do with "large corporations managing risk".

AnthonyMouse 12y ago
> Having patents and enforcing them does not make you a troll. It's generally understood that trolls are non-practicing entities. Apple and Microsoft have managed to turn that line thoroughly into mud by weaponizing patent trolling as a tool to wage proxy wars. > Unfortunately, people frequently use the word as a derogatory term for "someone who uses patents in a way I don't like" (which often really means "someone who uses patents for their intended purpose, which I don't like on principle"), making it lack any real meaning. Patent trolling as a practice has quite clear contours: The perpetrator alleges patent infringement and demands a license fee which is less than the cost of proving non-infringement or patent invalidity in court, leaving the victim having to either pay the troll the Danegeld regardless of infringement or pay even more to their own lawyers to prove otherwise. > That someone as litigious as Oracle was supporting this should tell you something: that this effort had little to do with "reforming patents" and more to do with "large corporations managing risk". Your explanation is belied by the number of patent nastygrams received by startups that can hardly be described as "large corporations." That we see Oracle on the side of reform next to the likes of Red Hat and the EFF only goes to the severity of the problem.
- fpgeek 12y ago
  > Apple and Microsoft have managed to turn that line thoroughly into mud by weaponizing patent trolling as a tool to wage proxy wars. Which is why I favor calling them patent ogres, not patent trolls. What Apple and Microsoft (most notably among others) are doing is different, but similarly troubling.
  - rayiner 12y ago
    Apple and Microsoft own an NPE: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockstar_Consortium http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockstar_Consortium
    - throwawaykf05 12y ago
      Rockstar claim to have made commitments to the DOJ and FTC to operate independently [1]. What do you make of that? 1. http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=2a10f894-6812-44b5-a01c-d64562c4310f http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=2a10f894-6812-4... (ctrl-f "commitments")
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  > Apple and Microsoft have managed to turn that line thoroughly into mud by weaponizing patent trolling as a tool to wage proxy wars. 1. Apple and MS have historically sued competitors with their own patents, which typically they practice themselves. 2. The only conceivable "proxy" may be Rockstar, and they claim to operate independently. If they didn't, well, the DOJ and FTC would be mighty interested [1]. >Patent trolling as a practice has quite clear contours:... And my point was, Oracle clearly don't fit the bill. Heck, even IV don't fit that bill, because they apparently ask for pretty large licensing fees. >Your explanation is belied by the number of patent nastygrams received by startups that can hardly be described as "large corporations." Outside of cherrypicked media reports, there is insufficient empirical evidence that trolls target startups. I've been tracking trolls for a while, and trolls that go after the little guys are actually rare. The moment they do, there's inevitably some media outrage, and the number of unique trolls so far have been few (lodsys, scanner trolls, WiFi trolls... Fotomedia / photo sharing trolls about 7 years back... Any more?) By and large these pick on larger companies, because that's where the big money is. 1. http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=2a10f894-6812-44b5-a01c-d64562c4310f http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=2a10f894-6812-4... (ctrl-f "commitments")

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]