4 ms·

> VirnetX is a company some call a "patent troll" because its only business is now patent enforcement. I believe this viewpoint is shared by a number of people

by ghayes 12y ago

> VirnetX is a company some call a "patent troll" because its only business is now patent enforcement. I believe this viewpoint is shared by a number of people. Specifically, that a litigious NPE is, by colloquial definition, a "patent troll." There is a conversation to be had as to whether the practice is good or bad, or if they are acting more appropriately than their peer group, but I think the term fits in this case.

ScottBurson 12y ago
The fact that a viewpoint is shared by a number of people is hardly an argument for its validity. We need to understand what we're fighting. Defining a patent troll as any NPE who files an infringement suit is clearly too broad, because the only way to prevent trolling under that definition is to shut down the patent system. As long as patents are issued, and can be bought and sold, it will be possible for NPEs to own them. Furthermore, independent inventors, of whom I believe there are still a few left, and whom I think we all believe the patent system should protect if it protects anyone, are generally NPEs.
- wutbrodo 12y ago
  > The fact that a viewpoint is shared by a number of people is hardly an argument for its validity. This is actually _exactly_ how language works, and that's precisely what's under discussion here: whether the term patent troll is accurate. There's a different discussion to be had (which rayiner is also alluding to in his comment) about whether this definition has negative side-effects (like being too broad), but being clear on the terms being used in a discussion is important.
rayiner 12y ago
I don't disagree it's a common viewpoint, I'm just saying it's not very useful to call every NPE a patent troll. It lumps universities together with companies that seek nuisance settlements using the cost of litigation as leverage. In general, the law allows you to sell your cause of action to someone else. For example, many investors who had suits against big banks over mortgage-backed securities sold their causes of action to funds that could bring them efficiently in one go. That's just property rights in action. At least in theory, it's more efficient to allow rights of action to be sold like property. Now, maybe you think that these sorts of suits shouldn't be brought at all. There's arguments to be made for that. But in that case, I think you need to lump companies like Apple in with companies like these.
- Natsu 12y ago
  > I just think it's not very useful to call every NPE a troll. Simple explanation: if they make their money from suing people, it's a troll.
  - crazy1van 12y ago
    Debating the finer points of what constitutes a troll really isn't helpful. It takes the focus off of the real debate -- improving the patent system.
    - tekacs 12y ago
      Meta-comments[1] explaining that the conversation above isn't useful aren't useful. They take the focus off of the real debate -- that which people choose to talk about in the comment thread. Ignoring comments is easy. proceeds to take own advice [1]: such as this one, but this wouldn't be necessary if folks didn't find it necessary to waste space dictating what's worth talking about.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - chrismcb 12y ago
    No, not really. If they developed they technology and are trying to license it, and suing people that don't license it... That is not a troll. That is someone who is doing exactly what patents were meant to do... Patents we're meant to encourage people to invent.
    - dTal 12y ago
      You are confusing patents with copyright. Patents were meant to encourage people to disclose. It was taken for granted that people will invent things regardless of patent protection - they will just keep their inventions trade secrets.
      - 12y ago

by ghayes 12y ago

ScottBurson 12y ago

The fact that a viewpoint is shared by a number of people is hardly an argument for its validity. We need to understand what we're fighting. Defining a patent troll as any NPE who files an infringement suit is clearly too broad, because the only way to prevent trolling under that definition is to shut down the patent system. As long as patents are issued, and can be bought and sold, it will be possible for NPEs to own them. Furthermore, independent inventors, of whom I believe there are still a few left, and whom I think we all believe the patent system should protect if it protects anyone, are generally NPEs.

wutbrodo 12y ago
> The fact that a viewpoint is shared by a number of people is hardly an argument for its validity. This is actually _exactly_ how language works, and that's precisely what's under discussion here: whether the term patent troll is accurate. There's a different discussion to be had (which rayiner is also alluding to in his comment) about whether this definition has negative side-effects (like being too broad), but being clear on the terms being used in a discussion is important.

rayiner 12y ago

I don't disagree it's a common viewpoint, I'm just saying it's not very useful to call every NPE a patent troll. It lumps universities together with companies that seek nuisance settlements using the cost of litigation as leverage. In general, the law allows you to sell your cause of action to someone else. For example, many investors who had suits against big banks over mortgage-backed securities sold their causes of action to funds that could bring them efficiently in one go. That's just property rights in action. At least in theory, it's more efficient to allow rights of action to be sold like property. Now, maybe you think that these sorts of suits shouldn't be brought at all. There's arguments to be made for that. But in that case, I think you need to lump companies like Apple in with companies like these.

Natsu 12y ago
> I just think it's not very useful to call every NPE a troll. Simple explanation: if they make their money from suing people, it's a troll.
- crazy1van 12y ago
  Debating the finer points of what constitutes a troll really isn't helpful. It takes the focus off of the real debate -- improving the patent system.
  - tekacs 12y ago
    Meta-comments[1] explaining that the conversation above isn't useful aren't useful. They take the focus off of the real debate -- that which people choose to talk about in the comment thread. Ignoring comments is easy. proceeds to take own advice [1]: such as this one, but this wouldn't be necessary if folks didn't find it necessary to waste space dictating what's worth talking about.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- chrismcb 12y ago
  No, not really. If they developed they technology and are trying to license it, and suing people that don't license it... That is not a troll. That is someone who is doing exactly what patents were meant to do... Patents we're meant to encourage people to invent.
  - dTal 12y ago
    You are confusing patents with copyright. Patents were meant to encourage people to disclose. It was taken for granted that people will invent things regardless of patent protection - they will just keep their inventions trade secrets.
    - 12y ago