|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article is written in American English (labor, traveled, realize, defense), and some terms used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
Benefits & Harm
Not having a specific replacement in mind. But to call patent trolls 'harmful' to manufacturing companies as like to say their suppliers are 'harmful' because they cost the manufacturers money too.
The Vagueness Criticism is Ridiculous.
"# Vagueness. The term "patent troll" is criticized as vague and its use as subjective."
12 is a link to a tiny, short article where he is asking the question for debate over if a Patent Troll is bad. It being confusing is mentioned once in the tiny article "Here’s my working definition of the confusing term: Patent Troll." Now, I don't understand where this link gets "vague" or "subjective" from. Aside from the article asking for more clarification on what a Patent Troll is. But that is the point of the article. You can't strike up debate over what a Patent Troll is for your site if you begin with "Patent Troll is clearly defined."
I don't think this criticism should be on the page. It's ridiculous. The source is not credible. It'd be like me going to the The Dark Knight page and listing a criticism of the movie as "Some people do not think it is a movie" and then linking to a similar page with the topic "Is this a movie?" It's not an article, it's not an editorial, it's essentially a message board. It shouldn't be on Wikipedia. If anyone else can find someone confused over the term of a Patent Troll, then that should be allowed to stay. But until then, I say we delete it. Plus, it's a very large article up to that point, how can a criticism be that it is confusing? Anyone who read through this would know it's not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk • contribs)
Selden Patent, troll or submarine?
George B. Selden's automobile patent took 16 years from application to granting. At the time he began demanding royalties and filing lawsuits, he had only produced a single example of a motor vehicle. Bizzybody (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Definition is Not Precise
The current definition of patent troll is imprecise:
- A patent troll ... is a person or company who enforces patent rights ... to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question, thus engaging in economic rent-seeking. Non-practicing entities are generally not considered 'patent trolls' when they offer their patented technologies to licensees in advance ....
By this definition, any company that offers a license before suing would not be a patent troll. However, it's common practice for "patent trolls" to offer a license, and then when that license is rejected, to launch a lawsuit. Also, operating companies that launch huge lawsuits based on very weak patents can often be described as trollish, even if they manufacture real products. The truth is that patent troll does not have a precise definition, but is used pejoratively to describe an entity that asserts a patent that people do not like. I prefer to use Judge Rader's definition, which captures this subtly to a much greater degree. According to him, a patent troll is:
- any party that attempts to enforce a patent far beyond its actual value or contribution to the prior art.
Accordingly, I propose we change the first paragraph to the following:
- A patent troll is a pejorative term used to describe a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art. Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. However, some entities which do not practice their asserted patent may not be considered "patent trolls" when they license their patented technologies on reasonable terms in advance. Other related terms include patent holding company (PHC), patent assertion entity (PAE), and non-practicing entity (NPE), which may or may not be considered a "patent troll" depending on the position they are taking and the perception of that position by the public.
- I like the new first paragraph you proposed. It brings some clarity to the issue. --Edcolins (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
What about a List of alleged patent trolls?
|Uniloc||The company asserted that its "software activation" patent gives it clearance to sue many for using some form of online authentication for software.|||
- See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of patent trolls. --Edcolins (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)