Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 30th Jun 2012 19:34 UTC
Legal Yesterday, we were treated to another preliminary injunction on a product due to patent trolling. Over the past few years, some companies have resorted to patent trolling instead of competing on merit, using frivolous and obvious software and design patents to block competitors - even though this obviously shouldn't be legal. The fact that this is, in fact, legal, is baffling, and up until a few months ago, a regular topic here on OSNews. At some point - I stopped reporting on the matter. The reason for this is simple: I realised that intellectual property law exists outside of regular democratic processes and is, in fact, wholly and utterly totalitarian. What's the point in reporting on something we can't change via legal means?
Thread beginning with comment 524628
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: not a ptatent troll
by Soulbender on Sun 1st Jul 2012 03:49 UTC in reply to "RE: not a ptatent troll"
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

My opinion is that apple are behaving as patent trolls since it's clear that a key part of their strategy is resorting to litigation to harass competitors instead of just offering the best product value for customers on the market.


Sure, they are abusing the patent system but that's not the same as being a patent troll. A patent troll has no products, only (questionable) patents.
Apple, for all their faults and bad behavior, do create real products.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: not a ptatent troll
by Alfman on Sun 1st Jul 2012 04:49 in reply to "RE[2]: not a ptatent troll"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Soulbender,

I see it as being overly pedantic. I'm still comfortable calling apple patent trolls on account of their courtroom behaviour. I don't think it makes sense to say the status as a patent troll ought to be dependent upon factors completely external to the case. If my product is banned by apple or an IP corp, it's the same to me. Maybe one is more vulnerable to counter attacks, but I see patent trolling as patent trolling regardless of who does it. And I certainly hope a distinction isn't incorporated into law because that opens up a loophole that's a mile wide. Apple doesn't manufacture their own hardware, likewise IP corporations could just contract out manufacturing and sell insanely expensive implementations with no intention of getting real customers...it wouldn't even matter to them if their products are banned.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: not a ptatent troll
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 1st Jul 2012 05:22 in reply to "RE[2]: not a ptatent troll"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

There actually is no set definition of patent troll. If Apple fanatics get to come up with fairy tales of Google stealing, I think I can use the term patent troll when Apple engages in patent troll behaviour.

It's not like I can make the multibillion dollar corporation cry.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: not a ptatent troll
by Soulbender on Sun 1st Jul 2012 05:51 in reply to "RE[3]: not a ptatent troll"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

I think I can use the term patent troll when Apple engages in patent troll behaviour.


Sure, you can do whatever you want but it devalues the real meaning when you apply it like that.

It's not like I can
make the multibillion dollar corporation cry.


That's not what we're saying.

Reply Parent Score: 2