Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 17th Apr 2012 21:57 UTC, submitted by Drake
Thread beginning with comment 514636
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
That's definitely true, but there's no denying that once you use patents JUST to stifle competition (like these companies are doing), the term troll applies just fine.
You wouldn't hear me if Apple was, say, suing makers of the Aeppl yPhone, those 1:1 copies that run some Flash-based OS with the same icons and all that.




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.