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 524637
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: not a ptatent troll
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 1st Jul 2012 05:22 UTC 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

RE[5]: not a ptatent troll
by M.Onty on Sun 1st Jul 2012 10:30 in reply to "RE[4]: not a ptatent troll"
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

... but it devalues the real meaning when you apply it like that.


It devalues the 'real' meaning of a phrase only a few years old?

Reply Parent Score: 3