Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 17th Apr 2012 21:57 UTC, submitted by Drake
Legal Say what you want about Twitter - pointless, annoying, noise, useless - at least the company has its heart in the right place. Twitter just announced the Innovator's Patent Agreement, a promise not use their or their employees' patents offensively. In a world where yesterday's innovators are today's patent trolls - Apple, Microsoft, Oracle - this is a big deal.
Thread beginning with comment 514631
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Patent troll?
by majipoor on Wed 18th Apr 2012 08:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Patent troll?"
majipoor
Member since:
2009-01-22

Indeed.

It seems you forgot the key point which make the difference between an actual patent troll and a company such as the one you mentioned:

"with no intention to further develop, manufacture or market the patented invention"

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Patent troll?
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 18th Apr 2012 08:08 in reply to "RE[2]: Patent troll?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Indeed.

It seems you forgot the key point which make the difference between an actual patent troll and a company such as the one you mentioned:

"with no intention to further develop, manufacture or market the patented invention"


And you miss the key word:

"often with no intention".

It fascinates me how hard some people try not to have to accept reality. Quite entertaining.

Edited 2012-04-18 08:09 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Patent troll?
by kwan_e on Wed 18th Apr 2012 08:28 in reply to "RE[3]: Patent troll?"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Does it matter how often the intention is, though? Patent troll is hardly a legal term with precise legal definitions. It's more like a meme and those aren't well defined.

I think the more important feature of genuine patent trolls is their core business model. Apple et al's core business model isn't patent litigation. They may be "evil" companies, evil meaning "anticompetitive", but patent troll is a very specific subset of anticompetitive.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Patent troll?
by MOS6510 on Wed 18th Apr 2012 08:30 in reply to "RE[3]: Patent troll?"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Still, "often" means often.

You can't claim Apple/Microsoft often don't want to do anything with their patents. When they sue it's always regarding patented stuff already in use. So in their cases it's "never".

We have been over this before. You regard anyone who sues over patents to be a troll, unless they're on your good guys list. You degrade the term offering no differences between for example a real company like Microsoft or a shady one that produces nothing and just buys patents to sue.

How would you qualify those? Mega trolls or trolls++?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Patent troll?
by mango on Sat 21st Apr 2012 07:43 in reply to "RE[3]: Patent troll?"
mango Member since:
2006-12-15

Indeed.

It seems you forgot the key point which make the difference between an actual patent troll and a company such as the one you mentioned:

"with no intention to further develop, manufacture or market the patented invention"


And you miss the key word:

"often with no intention".

It fascinates me how hard some people try not to have to accept reality. Quite entertaining.


I think you missed the key phrase

"who buys and enforces patents"

Most of the companies listed didn't buy the the patents they are enforcing. They were granted/given the patents.They are the original patent holders.

Tolls buy up other people's patents then enforce them.

Edited 2012-04-21 07:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1