4 ms·

The fact that this is being heard in court and the patent holder is winning means, according to my definition, they aren't patent trolls. I define "patent trol

The fact that this is being heard in court and the patent holder is winning means, according to my definition, they aren't patent trolls. I define "patent troll" as an entity that has a sliver of a chance of winning, but 100% chance that they will impose high costs on the defendant at little cost to themselves. They use this assymetry as a form of legal extortion. They limit their downside by holding few assets aside from the patent. EDIT: I am in no way commenting on the merit of the case or the 1% figure.

larrys 12y ago
The "definition" of a patent troll (per google search): "A patent troll, also called a patent assertion entity, is a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question." This is always the definition that I understood.
- fleitz 12y ago
  So sort of like Universities?
  - adventured 12y ago
    Some universities are absolutely on the list of most aggressive and abusive patent trolls. Some universities are also among those fighting hardest to keep the status quo in place so they can continue to harm the US economy with frivolous patents and milk a broken system.
    - fleitz 12y ago
      Yes! We need to get rid of those fat cats in Washington! LULZ.
  - marcosdumay 12y ago
    And independent inventors, and basically anybody that is not a huge corporation and creates something useful. That popular definition looks too much like political propaganda.
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  It is a common definition, but a very unfortunate one. See my reply to 'ghayes upthread.
  - adventured 12y ago
    It is an excellent and fortunate definition. If all you do is hold patents, sue people and companies, and do not make anything or sell goods or services, you're a patent troll. And that's exactly the label that should be slapped on this company. Hopefully we can get all entities that fit the definition of a patent troll abolished. Also fortunately it's inevitable that the patent troll business will be destroyed. It will be made so difficult and unprofitable, few will attempt it. It's merely a matter of how long it takes and much economic damage is caused by the trolls first.
    - ScottBurson 12y ago
      So you believe that independent inventors and universities are causing great economic damage? Why? In my mind, the people who are doing damage are those who are taking advantage of the fact that defending oneself against a patent infringement suit is expensive, by suing small businesses with little or no regard to whether they actually infringe; and those taking advantage of low-quality patents that should never have been issued, like the infamous scan-to-email patent. I think that by equating trolls with NPEs, you are losing an important distinction between the ones doing this damage and entities with valid patents that took real R&D to develop, and who are enforcing them against actual infringers. I don't know how you can say that the latter group don't deserve to be able to enforce their patent rights, unless you want to discard the entire patent system. In any case I don't think your proposal is going to fly. In contrast, we almost had a bill pass Congress to limit the worst abuses. I still don't understand why this failed.
      - tluyben2 12y ago
        So we shouldn't be thinking about trolls / not trolls, but just how to rapidly identify and throw out trivial patents and prior art. The fact that you can patent most of these things in the first place is crazy; you didn't do 'real R&D' on these. You just had someone with patent knowledge identify as much patents as possible in a grand collection of things which might well have taken real R&D to come up with. But then you should be forced to patent the whole of things, not every trivial part in it. The infringers / trolls are the ones who sue over trivial stuff which a 4 year old can think up while sitting on the toilet. And that's what most of these are. And most of the others (and a lot of these) are prior art. Making it sound official doesn't change that. What is left might well be the result of real and costly R&D and should be (if it's not software imho) protected for a few years so the investment can be earned back.
- rayiner 12y ago
  The problem with this definition is that one of the purposes of the patent system is to enable companies that don't produce products but rather produce R&D.
  - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
    That works fine when you develop a new technology and then offer to license it to people who wouldn't have thought of it before you told them about it. Patenting an obvious concept and then threatening everyone who independently came to the same conclusion is a different matter entirely.
rmrfrmrf 12y ago
Your definition is wrong.
blackoil 12y ago
Considering how new the term is we shouldn't so easily define it else we end up like hackers, which is broadly defined but has a negative perception in public.
neurobro 12y ago
I define "patent troll" as anyone who has and defends patents that should have never been issued. So, everyone who has and defends software patents is a troll, and I have no sympathy if they get sued into oblivion by other trolls.

larrys 12y ago

The "definition" of a patent troll (per google search): "A patent troll, also called a patent assertion entity, is a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question." This is always the definition that I understood.

fleitz 12y ago
So sort of like Universities?
- adventured 12y ago
  Some universities are absolutely on the list of most aggressive and abusive patent trolls. Some universities are also among those fighting hardest to keep the status quo in place so they can continue to harm the US economy with frivolous patents and milk a broken system.
  - fleitz 12y ago
    Yes! We need to get rid of those fat cats in Washington! LULZ.
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  And independent inventors, and basically anybody that is not a huge corporation and creates something useful. That popular definition looks too much like political propaganda.
ScottBurson 12y ago
It is a common definition, but a very unfortunate one. See my reply to 'ghayes upthread.
- adventured 12y ago
  It is an excellent and fortunate definition. If all you do is hold patents, sue people and companies, and do not make anything or sell goods or services, you're a patent troll. And that's exactly the label that should be slapped on this company. Hopefully we can get all entities that fit the definition of a patent troll abolished. Also fortunately it's inevitable that the patent troll business will be destroyed. It will be made so difficult and unprofitable, few will attempt it. It's merely a matter of how long it takes and much economic damage is caused by the trolls first.
  - ScottBurson 12y ago
    So you believe that independent inventors and universities are causing great economic damage? Why? In my mind, the people who are doing damage are those who are taking advantage of the fact that defending oneself against a patent infringement suit is expensive, by suing small businesses with little or no regard to whether they actually infringe; and those taking advantage of low-quality patents that should never have been issued, like the infamous scan-to-email patent. I think that by equating trolls with NPEs, you are losing an important distinction between the ones doing this damage and entities with valid patents that took real R&D to develop, and who are enforcing them against actual infringers. I don't know how you can say that the latter group don't deserve to be able to enforce their patent rights, unless you want to discard the entire patent system. In any case I don't think your proposal is going to fly. In contrast, we almost had a bill pass Congress to limit the worst abuses. I still don't understand why this failed.
    - tluyben2 12y ago
      So we shouldn't be thinking about trolls / not trolls, but just how to rapidly identify and throw out trivial patents and prior art. The fact that you can patent most of these things in the first place is crazy; you didn't do 'real R&D' on these. You just had someone with patent knowledge identify as much patents as possible in a grand collection of things which might well have taken real R&D to come up with. But then you should be forced to patent the whole of things, not every trivial part in it. The infringers / trolls are the ones who sue over trivial stuff which a 4 year old can think up while sitting on the toilet. And that's what most of these are. And most of the others (and a lot of these) are prior art. Making it sound official doesn't change that. What is left might well be the result of real and costly R&D and should be (if it's not software imho) protected for a few years so the investment can be earned back.
rayiner 12y ago
The problem with this definition is that one of the purposes of the patent system is to enable companies that don't produce products but rather produce R&D.
- AnthonyMouse 12y ago
  That works fine when you develop a new technology and then offer to license it to people who wouldn't have thought of it before you told them about it. Patenting an obvious concept and then threatening everyone who independently came to the same conclusion is a different matter entirely.

rmrfrmrf 12y ago

Your definition is wrong.

blackoil 12y ago

Considering how new the term is we shouldn't so easily define it else we end up like hackers, which is broadly defined but has a negative perception in public.

neurobro 12y ago

I define "patent troll" as anyone who has and defends patents that should have never been issued. So, everyone who has and defends software patents is a troll, and I have no sympathy if they get sued into oblivion by other trolls.