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 531366
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Anonymous Penguin
by Alfman on Fri 17th Aug 2012 04:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Anonymous Penguin"
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

Alfman Member since:

I was pointing out that there's no non-arbitrary line by which we can absolutely qualify "patent trolls" without entering significantly more subjective grey areas. Many US companies no longer build any products internally whatsoever, they outsource development and do not own or invest in the means of production. They essentially own the brand + "IP", not the means of production. It's clearly a grey area, and I suspect many will be tempted to interpret patent trolling in a way that excludes themselves rather than in a way that makes sense in describing it's harmful behaviours.

Indy dev: I'm being sued by Uniloc for building an independent implementation of a software algorithm that inadvertently infringes a software parent.

Pendant dev: Hold on a sec, let me lookup what products Uniloc sells so we can find out whether or not they are patent trolling...

Pendant dev: No products on their website; patent trolling bastards!

Indy dev: What if they're selling products somewhere else under a different brand name?

Pendant dev: ...lets see...

Indy dev: I found it: they used to sell under a subsidiary called "Uniloc PC Preload" back in 2000.

Pedant dev: Yea, but that's defunct now and they're obviously a patent trolling licensing company today.

Indy dev: Wait, I found they have a US subsidiary, and have been selling "Uniloc NetAnchor CIS", does that count?

Pendant dev: Oh yea, well then they aren't patent trolls.

Indy dev: But their product is designed to protect water and power facilities from catastrophic failure, which has nothing to do with my product whatsoever.

Pendant dev: No matter, they have a product, they aren't patent trolling you my friend.

Indy dev: Even though Uniloc's official mission statement declares themselves to be a patent licensing company?

Pendant dev: ...What grey areas?

The characters above were fictitious, but the underlying company is not. Citations:

Anyways, interesting trivia: Peter Detkin, the person who first coined the term has gone on to found intellectual ventures - a patent trolling company by his own definition.

Edited 2012-08-17 07:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3