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 524639
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: not a ptatent troll
by Soulbender on Sun 1st Jul 2012 05:51 UTC 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

RE[6]: not a ptatent troll
by darcysmith on Sun 1st Jul 2012 19:22 in reply to "RE[5]: not a ptatent troll"
darcysmith Member since:
2006-04-12

Yes, it does devalue something that is only a few years old.

It has a pretty specific, non-legal, meaning. And Apple clearly does not meet the definition.

Interestingly I googled Apple Patent Troll and the *ONLY* references I found for Apple being a patent troll were sites that were clearly Android biased using it. Everything else was companies that were actually patent trolls suing Apple (and others).

I have no issue with sites having bias for/against Apple/Android/Google/Windows/whatever. I do have an issue with sites that present things in the wrong way though. I'm just asking for people who are supposedly reporting/editorializing on things to use the proper terms and not try to co-opt them to make their point. Either your point stands on its merits, or you have to try to use evocative language to make your point. One argument is strong, the other is weak.

No if you were to say that Apple is behaving like a patent troll, and explain why you think that you have a totally different thing. I'd probably not agree with you, since the fundamental part of being a patent troll is not implementing the patent, but at least you could try to explain why you feel that way, and perhaps convince the reader.

Ultimately the issue resides with the patent system, not those using the patent system. I find it hard to fault a company for using patents that they have been granted. I do have a huge problem with the patents being granted to begin with, as well as the length of them. I actually hope that more companies do more stupid things with stupid patents so that the issue comes to a head and someone finally gets the nerve to solve it.

Reply Parent Score: 1