tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post114614097399205347..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: BE KIND TO THAT TROLL ...Verónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1146160897483692102006-04-27T19:01:00.000+01:002006-04-27T19:01:00.000+01:00I think there are differences in patent asserters....I think there are differences in patent asserters. The villains, “true” trolls, if you wish, are the ones who are asserting worthless patents knowing full well it will require anywhere from $500K to $1m in discovery costs to have their patent invalidated. (Of course, no troll-calling defendant would have such dubious rights in its own vast portfolio.) A company would be foolish not to want to resolve a potentially costly dispute for only $200K or $300K. Even though it's a shakedown the response is a business decsion. My question is how did business get to this point? Why is it so costly to prove obvious invalidity? Are the patent “thickets” promoted, consciously or otherwise, by large portfolio owners coming back to haunt them? The emphasis should not be only on why the patent office issues this trash in the first place, but why vetting them has become so painful? Until trolls came along, costly assertion benefitted many large portfolio owners. Now they're not so sure. Disputes are inevitable, how they get resolved is not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1146159297781571452006-04-27T18:34:00.000+01:002006-04-27T18:34:00.000+01:00Sadly I knew what an online troll is - though I ha...Sadly I knew what an online troll is - though I hadn't put the two together. Not all US patent litigation involves a troll - at least I don't think that this one does! <BR/>http://news.com.com/2100-1006_3-6064340.html<BR/><BR/>Does "cybersquatter" also fit into the perjorative language category?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1146156076397290622006-04-27T17:41:00.000+01:002006-04-27T17:41:00.000+01:00Our choice of vocabulary does indeed fundamentally...Our choice of vocabulary does indeed fundamentally frame the shape of the debate about intellectual property. 'Piracy', for example, is something which happens on the high seas, not when copyright is infringed. Jessica Litman covers the whole area of intellectual property rhetoric really well in her book, Digital Copyright. She says "If you're dissatisfied with the way the spoils are getting divided, one approach is to change the rhetoric."Ray Corriganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06810875779011470290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1146148083099442112006-04-27T15:28:00.000+01:002006-04-27T15:28:00.000+01:00John H - the reason I posted my comment was becaus...John H - the reason I posted my comment was because it suddenly occurred to me that the words "patent troll" might actually reveal more about the attitude of the person using the words than about the entity to which he directs those words. It suddenly got me worried as to whether our choice of vocabulary can impede the solution of the problems we set out to solve.<BR/><BR/>Guy - I'm oscillating between Private Eye and The Onion again. Whenever will i find time to read the law ...Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01123244020588707776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1146145385596110002006-04-27T14:43:00.000+01:002006-04-27T14:43:00.000+01:00Jeremy: You're very kind. ;-)Do I gather that a sp...Jeremy: You're very kind. ;-)<BR/><BR/>Do I gather that a specific incident lay behind your post? <BR/><BR/>Guy: yes, that cartoon was excellent. I'm sure the CEO of <A HREF="http://www.rim.net/" REL="nofollow">Research in Motion</A> would be delighted to have a framed copy on his desk...John Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074559601919298190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1146145042723268722006-04-27T14:37:00.000+01:002006-04-27T14:37:00.000+01:00The latest issue of Private Eye, by chance, has an...The latest issue of Private Eye, by chance, has an excellent illustration of a "Troll Bridge".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1146144706442214342006-04-27T14:31:00.000+01:002006-04-27T14:31:00.000+01:00Thanks for your entirely temperate and reasonable ...Thanks for your entirely temperate and reasonable response. I only wish all debate was conducted like that (except when it's my turn to speak ...)<BR/><BR/>I wasn't aware of the online term "trolling" and wonder how many of the IPKat's legal, rather than techie, readers knew of it.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01123244020588707776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-1146143903051933512006-04-27T14:18:00.000+01:002006-04-27T14:18:00.000+01:00I think the term "patent troll" probably owes more...I think the term "patent troll" probably owes more to the online term "trolling". In online discourse, a "troll" is someone who makes a provocative contribution to a discussion, not to advance the discussion, but purely to generate a heated response from other participants. For example, someone goes onto an MS Windows discussion site and posts a comment saying, "Windows is t3h lame!!! Use Linux!!!!!"<BR/><BR/>Apparently the term comes from fishing, rather than from the legendary creatures that live under bridges - a point that should be of interest to the IPKat, given your strapline!<BR/><BR/>The point about "patent trolls" is then the sense that they are people who have done absolutely nothing to stimulate innovation or generate new ideas themselves, but are instead opportunists who hoover up otherwise "redundant" patents and use them to crowbar money out of other companies. (Of course, they have probably paid the actual inventor money that the inventor would not otherwise have received, but as you point out that side of it is often neglected in discussions of this phenomenon.)<BR/><BR/>Underlying all this is a loss of confidence in the patent system, particularly the US patent system. There is a widespread sense that people in the US are being granted patents that are wholly unjustifiable and that have a wholly disproportionate impact on other users of technology (the Creative Zen "hierarchical menu" patent springs to mind as a topical example). Thus there is a sense that "patent trolls" are getting a windfall that is unfair and unjustifiable, and their "victims" are suffering because of fundamental flaws in the system - plus, the number of bad patents out there means almost any business, particularly in the IT field, is at risk of such a claim popping up at some point.<BR/><BR/>Finally, you comment that "no-one wants to see patents lying idle" - however, I think it's rather that no-one wants to see new <I>innovations</I> lying idle, and the most controversial of these cases seem to have involved situations where a technology was being actively exploited, to the joy of millions (OK, perhaps I exaggerate a little...), and then that is threatened by a patent that has previously been "lying idle" but is then suddenly revived by a new owner, whether or not that owner is an ugly creature that lives under a bridge...John Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074559601919298190noreply@blogger.com