Talk:Patent holding company/Archive 1

Archive 1

Merger proposal

I propose that this article be merged into the Patent troll article as "patent-holding company" describes the same type of entity and practice. Although "patent troll" is a pejorative term, it is by far the most common term used for such entities in the US press and even used by U.S. President Barack Obama in his June 2013 proposals to address the issue. Additionally that article is much more developed and referenced than this one. OccamzRazor (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

They are not synonyms. Patent trolls are a subspecies. I have worked with companies with large patent portfolios for things which they invented, manufactured and sold themselves. Consequently, they could not possibly be called patent trolls even though they chose to create a single subsidiary patent holding company, assigned all their patents to it and used that company to manage all their patent licencing and revenue both internally within its family of companies and externally to independent licencees.

Indeed, Obama did mention problems with holding companies, but wasn't just talking about trolling - he was also talking about the possible problem of it being unclear to someone on the end of a lawsuit who exactly was suing them. That's nothing to do with trolling, but it a specific problem that could be associated with a perfectly innocent holding company. That's another problem with coporate law - large companies hiding behind brands.

The new sources refer to the tax and administrative aspects of creating a holding company, making clear that it's not just about suing people, which is the only thing patent trolls do. GDallimore (Talk) 18:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Oppose merger. Trolls are, at least in concept if not legally, a subset of the more generic term, PHC. It's reasonable to distinguish the two concepts in this PHC article and merely link to the Patent Troll article, while focusing the PHC article on the non-troll aspects of PHCs to reduce duplication of content. — RCraig09 (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment. See also Talk:Patent privateer. --Edcolins (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverts

I reverted most of the edits made yesterday. Just because Obama made one speech where he called trolls "patent holding companies" doesn't make PHC a synonym for patent troll. It's also totally disingenuous to (a) remove relevant references and then later remove the text that was supported by those references as being original research and (b) remove text from an article and then remove an external link which was relevant to that text as being an irrelevant link. GDallimore (Talk) 09:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Note, that the original whitehouse statement[1] used the term "Patent Assertion Entity", not patent holding company. Note also that this term is actually a far more accurate description of patent trolls since it describes a BEHAVIOUR, not merely a corporate arrangement. Of the sources referring to the White house statement, some of them say patent troll, some of them say patent holding company, some use other terms. It's obvious that there's confusion, which there has been for a long time. These Wikipedia articles need to cut through the confusion not promote it... GDallimore (Talk) 09:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I object to the deletion of properly sourced content added in good faith. The fact that many reliable sources covered the President's executive actions and suggested congressional actions regarding entities including those called PHCs is evidence that the content belongs in the article. Sourced content that is more positive toward PHCs can be added as a balance. The unsourced original research content giving various "rationales" for why patent-holding companies "might" exist is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not an editorial, for advice nor is is speculative. The only reference currently cited is about a patentee granting a company an exclusive license to produce the patented product(s) and has nothing to do with a PHC. This external link is to a blog by an attorney discussing a tax situation for one patent holder in the UK and also is completely irrelevant. The editor who made these reverts is a patent attorney and may be asserting a personal POV or COI in editing the article and in deleting unwanted sourced content added by others. OccamzRazor (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't have reverted the edits if they were made to patent troll. You haven't addressed my point that the congressional actions are directed at PAEs, not PHCs, and only some of the cited sources mentioned PHCs at all even though they all reported on the same congressional report.

Your pov appears to be that patent troll and PHC are the same thing, so you edited the article to make it look like the patent troll article and then removed all content that didn't meet that pov. Nice...

Accuse me of a having COI again and this conversation is over. GDallimore (Talk) 09:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with the taxation article: yesterday I could read the whole thing which made it relevance to the present article 100% clear. Now it seems that a subscription is needed to read it all. Guess you'll just have to take it on good faith, won't you... GDallimore (Talk) 09:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not wish to engage in a counter-productive edit war. Please help me understand why you object to sourced content being included in this article. The simple fact is that the media uses terms like PAE, PHC and patent troll interchangeably, with patent troll being the most common. Obama's speech was about entities that sue even though they don't practice the related inventions. It seems to me that you wish to narrow the scope of the article and have further narrowed the introduction to exclude even the licensing aspect of PHCs. Although you deleted the majority of my sourced content, you kept the references to support only defining terms.

The information in the public domain is much more expansive than is currently in the article after your deletions. Instead of deleting content provided by others, it would seem more productive if you added content from the numerous number of RS articles about the subject. Additionally, the "Rationale" section remains unsourced original research that could be considered advocacy of PHCs. Sources should be provided if available or the content should be removed. Please remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative venture and multiple POV are appropriate when properly sourced. I hope you will allow me to collaborate. OccamzRazor (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

The deleted edits from this article were also made to the patent troll article prior to including them here. They were included both places because the article overlap, hence the merge proposal. OccamzRazor (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, gentlemen. The terms are not correctly used interchangeably. Trolls are, at least in concept if not legally, a subset of the more generic terms. (A non-troll PHC would be, for example, a research university's or manufacturer's subsidiary/affiliate that is separately formed on a licensing mandate.) The criticisms that are getting so much press lately, are directed to Patent Trolls and unfortunately some commentators may attribute these sins—incorrectly—to all PHCs. • This is why I suggested above to distinguish the two concepts in this PHC article and merely link to the Patent Troll article, while focusing the PHC article on the non-troll aspects of PHCs to reduce duplication of content. Then, let reliable references determine, concisely, what goes in each article separately. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

While one may have a POV that it is incorrect to use these terms interchangeably, it is an established fact that they are widely so used. I recognize that certain PHC/NPE entities are clearly not considered trolls and included that in my sourced content that was deleted. See the introduction in [this version. Deleting properly sourced relevant content is not in keeping with the collaborative intent of Wikipedia. It is inappropriate to present only one POV in a WP article, especially when other POV are prevalent. OccamzRazor (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree that collaboration trumps edit warring. In the lead paragraph you linked, the Wall Street Journal reference specifically distinguished trolls as a particular breed of PHCs ("aimed at reining in certain patent-holding firms, known as patent trolls to their detractors") even if the NJSCPA article seemed to apply the troll definition to PHCs in general; The American article said the FTC equates PAEs with trolls. • I agree about including properly sourced content, but it seems that the arguments here might disappear if everyone first agrees on which article that content belongs in; I'm merely saying that PHC's hold patents while trolls (and possibly PAEs) are the subset that abuse them; and it would be wrong for WIkipedia to perpetuate misuse/overuse of the derisive term even if some commentators do so: a small section articulating this very naming confusion seems appropriate. — RCraig09 (talk) 18:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)