Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Aug 2012 22:17 UTC
PDAs, Cellphones, Wireless You wouldn't believe it, but something actually, truly interesting came out of the Apple vs. Samsung lawsuit yesterday. Apple had conducted a survey to find out why, exactly, consumers opted to go with Android instead of the iPhone. The results are fascinating - not only do they seem to invalidate Apple's claims, they provide an unusual insight into consumer behaviour. The gist? People choose Android not because it's an iPhone copy - they choose it because of Android's unique characteristics.
Thread beginning with comment 531346
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Anonymous Penguin
by tylerdurden on Thu 16th Aug 2012 21:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by Anonymous Penguin"
Member since:

So basically, "patent trolling" does not mean what you think it does...

Reply Parent Score: 2

Alfman Member since:

I know you have a specific definition in mind. But considering that there is no official definition, I still think it's reasonable if someone wants to call what apple are doing "patent trolling".

The qualified definition you'd use opens up all sorts of technicalities as to whether or not to classify an entity as a patent troll or not:

What if the patent troll sells the products of others instead of producing them itself? Keep in mind that apple don't actually manufacture their own stuff these days but contract it out to others, ie foxconn, samsung, etc.

What if a troll files offensive lawsuits using a patent portfolio, wherein only a subset of patents are known to be sold as products?

What if the troll has "plans" to sell a product, but doesn't follow through or isn't viable?

What if the troll sells a limited, unusable, or intentionally overpriced product?

What if a troll is actually a licensing subsidiary of another corporation who owns/uses the patents?

The point isn't to answer these questions, but to realise the irrelevancy of all arbitrary qualifications for the defendant who is on the receiving end of an inadvertent infringement lawsuit. The label should be applied on the basis of an aggressor's predatory actions regardless of whatever else they may be doing "on the side".


Reply Parent Score: 3

ilovebeer Member since:

The person who coined the term seemed to have an idea about what it meant, and it wasn't exactly complex. Pretending it has countless grey areas doesn't actually make it true, especially when you're changing the meaning to suit your own needs.

People are always going to lob terms around & engage in name-calling like there's no tomorrow. It would just be nice if people made an effort to at least use the terms & name-calling correctly. Of course, it's nothing to lose sleep over.

Reply Parent Score: 2