Talk:Patent troll/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Companies

The list for some reason adds at least 3 companies that do not fit the first paragraph description of a "patent troll" and seem to be there because they do something with patents somone doesn't like. The Companies, IBM, Creative Labs and University of California do not draw a signifigant part of their income from patents which falls quite short of "enforces patent rights against accused infringers, but does not manufacture products or supply services based on the patents in question.". Anyway what is up with the UofCali link that points to a blog that basically questions why people call them a patent troll? --12.162.185.121 16:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Sources

I added a source, changed the first paragraph a little. I have a problem with the word allegedly, they have no other use for the patents they buy. Also removed pov-check as there was no explanation on this page why it was put there and I have (tried) to remove what some might think is POV'd text. -Towel401 21:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem about removing the word "allegedly". You are right that they usually hope to get royalties. But I am concerned about qualifying a patent application as "vague" or "very vague". The BBC source you added does not talk about "vague". Detractors of a given patent often (of course) qualify it as vague, obvious, trivial, ridiculous and so on. Using the vocabulary of the detractors is POV.

Sources should be cited for this allegation (amongst other things): "Some of these have also been pushing for software patents in the European Union." --Edcolins 22:14, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I have added a source about the vague patents, I remember something about Acacia Technologies pushing for software patents in europe but I will do some more googling on that tomorrow. -Towel401

I removed the tags. The new version by Mmmbeer looks neutral and free of unreferenced statements now. Nonetheless, I would rather be more inclined to add only external links or references to articles. Forum references are not always of premium quality. --Edcolins 18:54, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Peter Detkin -- I edited to refine the definition to what I intended: entities that broadly assert specious patents across an industry for the purpose of generating nuisance value settlements. For some reason the definition had been both narrowed to covering only software patents and broadened to cover all non-use assertions. Neither is what I had in mind when I coined the term.

Fairytale troll

Is the fairytale troll reference really necessary? If anything, shouldn't there just be a link to troll someplace? It seems pretty silly to explain what a troll is within this article and then to spend a few sentences explaining why it's not exactly a good analogy. Mmmbeer 10:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it is no that silly to explain why the origin of the expression "patent troll" is actually at odds with the reality. To a certain extent, this may point out that the expression "patent troll" is based on a misconception (?).

However, I have removed the whole following paragraph because it actually looks like mere speculation.

The use of the term "troll" is thought to be in reference to fairytales and legends about mythical creatures hiding under bridges and demanding tolls of anyone who wished to use the bridge, under threat of killing and eating them -- in essence, creating an "income stream" from something they did not build. However, one difference between fairytale trolls and "patent trolls" is that the latter need to acquire a patent application or patent usually by providing a retribution to the inventor or original owner, before being able to enforce the patent. Presumably, the fairytale trolls would not "buy" a bridge and would then not provide any retribution to the civil engineers who designed it and to the workers who erected it.

No reference is provided to ascertain the origin of the expression "patent troll". Instead, it looks like from the following source: http://www.phonetel.com/pdfs/LWTrolls.pdf that the expression was born rather "impulsively".--Edcolins 12:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Peter Detkin -- I edited to refine the definition to what I intended: entities that broadly assert specious patents across an industry for the purpose of generating nuisance value settlements. For some reason the definition had been both narrowed to covering only software patents and broadened to cover all non-use assertions. Neither is what I had in mind when I coined the term.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.151.138 (talk • contribs)

How does one determine if a patent is "specious?" In my experience, the term has become a primary tool among lobbyists who receive the bulk of their funding from massive technology companies with a vested interest in being able to use other's inventions and innovations without cost. (107.19.128.207 (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)Ross)

Isn't the "troll" here the same word (as in spelling+meaning) as in "internet troll"? --TiagoTiago (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Software patents

I put in a paragraph to discuss the issues surrounding the software patent issue. The content has now been moved and slightly updated after a revert citing pov and placement. --Slashme 05:47, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Slashme, thanks for the new paragraph:

The field of software patents lends itself more easily than many others to patent trolling, as it is particularly difficult for patent examiners to determine whether a software patent is truly innovative, and it is disproportionately costly for software developers to do patent searches, compared to other industries.

However, I am concerned about the lack of reference and possibly the lack of neutrality of the statement. It is not clear to me why examination and research would be more difficult in the computer science and software patent field. Please cite your sources and put this statement into a factual context. To me, it is a speculation presented as a general statement on which everybody would agree. --Edcolins 11:33, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I added some references, and removed the comment about patent searches being disproportionately expensive for software companies. I also removed a rather suspicious slashdot reference that someone else had put in about EpicRealm, as I could find no independent verification. I'm not quite sure how to reference the SPI website. If anyone can correct my referencing style, please do. --Slashme 10:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing this section: it's POV, not relevant to the subject at hand (perhaps it should go in an article on software patents, but here its almost a nonsequitur: "miscellaneous" indeed), and the cited article is inaccessible. — Aldaron • T/C 18:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Review in external blog

This article and the concept of patent troll were reviewed on January 25, 2006 by Axel H. Horns in his blog "BLOG@IP::JUR" [1]. --Edcolins 07:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like he approves of our coverage, sort of. ;) mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 12:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?

This may be a nitpick, but the article's statement "Raymond P. Niro is debunking the patent troll myth" clearly expresses the view that Niro is correct. Perhaps something like "Raymond P. Niro is disputing the popular conception of patent trolls" would be more NPOV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.173.128 (talk • contribs)

The whole article feels like it has been written in a clearly biased point of view to me. The guys who wrote this definitely love patents, patent trolls and intellectual property. 09:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.125.117.197 (talk)

I see an NPOV issue, but the reverse of the prior poster. The opening line states that a "patent troll" is considered by the opponent to be "unduly aggressive." But there is no neutral source establishing any genuine consideration of "undue aggression" by such large companies. The large companies using the term typically know full well that the victim of the slur is availing itself of legal rights, and legal rights are not "undue," by definition. The large companies also avail themselves of patent rights with infringement actions, underscoring their awareness that these rights are not "undue." Thus, the idea that these large companies consider the "patent troll" to be unduly aggressive is not only untrue, but the reverse of the reality that the name-caller is the one aggressively using undue and illegal harassment against the "troll" via ad hominem attack with the goal of creating public scorn for an opponent, whereas the small patent holder is legally attempting to enforce rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.88.60 (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yahoo's definition

Regarding this definition:

In the U.S. Supreme Court case, eBay v. MercExchange, Yahoo! filed an amicus curiae brief defining "patent trolls" as "entities whose primary purpose is to prey on innovators who actually produce societally valuable products". Yahoo! further stated a patent troll's purpose is to "abuse the patent system by obtaining patents for the purpose of coercing settlements from such innovators."[4]

please do not remove it before first discussing the matter here. The definition may appear controversial; however merely citing it does not violate the NPOV principle. The two sides of the coin should be cited, with reliable sources. --Edcolins 09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

SCO v IBM

I moved SCO v. IBM to GNU General Public License since it seems to be more related to copyright trolls vs patent trolls--Nowa 22:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Scientigo

I removed the link to Scientigo since they do not meet the definition of patent troll. They own a controlling interest in Find.com and thus are actively commercializing the subject matter claimed in their patents.--Nowa 22:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Slashdot

What is the slashdot designation all about?--Nowa 01:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Not very clear to me. Template_talk:High-traffic#Usage is not very explicit. I moved it to the talk page. Rather disruptive on the article page IMHO. --Edcolins 08:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Resentment

I think a section could be added explaining the current resentment against the strategy of attempting to license and enforce patents, without performing research or producing products, the resentment against the "patent troll" strategy. What are the origins of that resentment? Why exactly is this expression currently quite popular at least in some media? Can this resentment be compared to other similar resentments against some other "money-driven activities" (bankers, investors, ...)? --Edcolins 09:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph

Deleted the paragraph begining "Extended delays encourage patent troll behavior." The entire paragraph is utter nonsense and the cited reference doesn't support the conclusion. The idea that a company can make use of an invention by reading someones published application and then be considered a victim of a patent troll when that same application issues as a patent and is enforced by the original inventor is nonsense. What you have is a clear case of copying someones invention without providing, or attempting to provide restitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.159.83.226 (talk • contribs)

It's badly phrased but I wouldn't say its "utter nonsense". A lot of it sounds like submarine patents (which really should be linked in the article someplace other not just left in the See also), but it could also apply to cases where a company files for the patent and then later publishes the information without disclosing that it has filed for the patent. I even seem to recall instances where a major software company was involved with a standards committee trying to get their technology incorporated into the standard without ever disclosing that they were in the process of patenting it. For example: this article states:

Other companies have resorted to a controversial tactic of applying for patents while pushing the technology in question in standards committees.

In 1995, Dell Computer agreed not to enforce its patent rights for the technology included in the VL-bus graphics standards, as part of an agreement with the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC had charged Dell with pushing for the adoption of a technology in the standards committee, without disclosing when asked, that the company held a patent.

Sun Microsystems and Rambus have both been investigated for similar actions.

Ewlyahoocom 16:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point that the paragraph could probably be written better. Feel free to edit if you feel it has POV.--Nowa 16:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added an additional reference on LZW patents used for GIF compression. Reference shows how patent was filed, technology was disclosed, third parties adopted technology thinking it was in the public domain, and then the patent issued. Third parties then had to take license to the patent to keep using the technology.--Nowa 16:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to find a study that looks at how often this happens. If anyone comes up with a good reference to one, please add.--Nowa 16:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the paragraph with something a bit more accurate and a bit more useful. I am sure there are other issues that can also be addressed (like the antitrust issues you raised), but they are not related to the delay in prosecuting applications (beyond the initial 18 month publication date used throughout the world).

Thanks for your contribution.--Nowa 19:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

The lead paragraph

I'm going to object to the lead paragraph as it currently exists because it simultaneously over-inclusive and under-inclusive. Don't get me wrong, I understand the difficulty of defining "patent troll", see my attempt at my own blog.[2] However, the current paragraph would seem to include organizations like Technology transfer offices (they're not inventive but do seek licenses and do seek to prevent infringement), but exclude things that aren't companies. In addition, I think that the phrase "owns some patents" is not exactly helpful; it seems on can be a patent troll by seeking to enforce a single broad patent or by leveraging a huge patent portfolio.

Also, I don't think that most people object to the mere idea of licensing and preventing infringement. What, at least as far as I understand it, people object to is the seeking to enforce weak patents or expecting windfall license fee/royalty payments.

Finally, I think that the phrase ""Patent troll" is a pejorative expression." is alittle out of place as its own sentence. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 00:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Good points. Feel free to edit.--Nowa 01:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point indeed. I reworded the intro. Remember however Wikipedia should not be a primary source. IMHO we should not attempt to "forge" a definition which is not backed by reliable sources. We should only try as far as possible to reflect what is currently admitted (and we should cite our sources). We can of course synthetize, compare and so on... I think the article could become a feature article in a while, there is indeed a lot of interest in the subject. We would first need to gather the most reliable and reputable articles (that can be added in the References section), then we may use the information in there and improve the article... --Edcolins 07:50, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there a feature article that could serve as a model?--Nowa 09:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Phishing? --Edcolins 09:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC) thanks--Nowa 23:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. I tried to cite some different sources because any "definition" we come up with is really, as Ed suggested, going to be a synthesis of other's. I've also included some further readings in the references section. Currently we don't have much a section about the "history," but it might be worth while to include some stories like about George B. Selden and his battle against Ford and other car companies over licensing his road engine patent. Some more information here and here.mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 15:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the lead paragraph, and the article as a whole, loses focus by trying to be over inclusive in defining who is a troll. In my experience the term is commonly used to companies who acquire or attempt to enforce bad patents (i.e. patents with validity problems) and are not themselves in the business of making any products. The prototypical examples are companies like Acacia Research, General Patent Corporation, and IP Learn. Usually these companies attempt to enforce patents covering software and/or networking technologies because it is easier to get patents in these areas through the U.S. Patent Office. Thomas Edison and research labs are not patent trolls.

--[[User: Kihl_06] 2 Jan. 2007

Kihl_06, I agree that the article as whole could use some tightening up, but as you can see from its history, this is a complicated and, for many, an emotionally charged subject. Feel free to give it a try but you might want to vet any significant changes on this talk page before diving into the article itself. There are many here who would be glad to help.--Nowa 16:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

How about something like this for the lead paragraph?

The term "patent troll" is typically used to describe a patent owner, which enforces patent rights against accused infringers, but does not provide products or services based on the patents in question. Because a patent troll does not provide any products or services, it can enforce its patents against others, while facing no risk of being countersued for patent infringement.

I would cut out the rest. The original Sandburg article did the best job of explaining the patent troll phenomenon. The rest of the material in the lead paragraph could be placed in the headings below. --[[User:Kihl 06] 2 Jan. 2007

I've fixed the problem by dividing the lead paragraph into a short sentence, then a new sentence for description. The lead paragraph, and much of the article, makes a fundamental mistake of equating ownership of a patent with some kind of moral duty to practice or develop the patent. As with all kinds of property - houses, land, musical recordings, computer software - there is a secondary market where the person who owns it may sell it to an investment company and thereby cash in, while the holding company then charges rents for use. There is nothing wrong with that, and it is a fundamental aspect of the capitalist system. Perhaps there is some anti-capitalist sentiment and some resentment of the landlord afoot, but I don't think that's the point of the term patent troll. The objection people have to patent trolls is not that they are holding companies that do this, but that they are opportunists that create property where nobody knew it existed. They don't legitimately buy patents fair and square from a real owner; they scavenge them from desperate or bankrupt companies and create value not by rewarding development but by rewarding crafty lawyering. As such, it arguably abuses the system because it defeats rather than supporting the aims of the patent system to reward development and disclosure of useful inventions. This kind of behavior exists for other property as well but that's another story. Wikidemo 18:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but as I've said in my recent edit summary, that wasn't an appropriate fix. Yes, the definition of troll in the opening paragraph is too broad, but that is not a flaw in the article, but a flaw in the way that patent troll is being defined. The rest of the article tries to make this clear. For example, the term troll is labelled controversial, derogatory, etc, highlighting that it is being used to attack companies rather than to categorise them in any rigid way. The article also makes clear, although not as clear as I would like, that patent holding companies should not be labelled trolls. I actually once introduced a whole section about that, but it got split off into its own article. Perhaps stronger links to that article would be in order.

The main reason, however, for your fix not being appropriate was that it was not referenced. The current definitions are taken from a couple of good sources, especially the EPO one, and until such time as a firmer legal definition is proposed, these are the definitions we are stuck with. The first reference could be a particular good source for explaining why such a definition is inappropriate, but changing the definition is not the way forward, in my view. GDallimore (Talk) 18:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't agree at all. The way the introductory paragraph is written it encompasses any company that buys or holds a patent other than the inventor or manufacturer, a ridiculous definition. Any holding company, by this definition, is a patent troll. A few of the sources advance this definition as a straw man in order to argue that there is no such thing. If that is the case, the entire article is non-notable. Wikipedia doesn't cover fallacious neologisms unless the fact that people use the neologism is itself notable. If it were the lead paragraph should read something like a "patent troll is a pejorative term often misapplied to patent owners...." But that is not the case. Everyone in the field knows what a patent troll is, although the term itself isn't always used. Most sources do propose a real definition, by which a patent troll is a company that exists only to scavenge moribund patents that they then assert against companies already practicing the invention in order to demand royalties. A short introductory topic sentence at the beginning of an article does not need independent citations when it summaries things already cited in the article but I'm happy to throw a few citations at it. Wikidemo 11:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking through I see the majority of the article is non-notable and needs clean-up. All of the arguments that the term is invalid, and the people using it have an agenda, should be put in a single section called "criticism of term" or something like that, rather than interspersed throughout the article. The rest of the article ought to be a discussion of the legitimate or substantive use of the term, how it came to be, and so on. Wikidemo 11:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Your lead paragraph is, in my view, acceptable ONLY because of the reference you added - which I hadn't read until now. Without that, you would be wrong even if the definition is a better refined one than the populist definition. Rule number one is verfiability, not notability or anything else you said to justify your edit.

While your ideas to put dubious uses of the term in one place are laudable, I severely doubt it is possible since there is no recognised meaning behind the word patent troll, despite what you imply, and people use it in all sorts of ways. GDallimore (Talk) 13:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Just occurred to me that, perhaps what you are failing to see is that this is a term that is defined by its use, not by any recorded definition, and it is being used primarily by people who have a scarce understanding of patents, licenses and so forth. Consequently, it is not a surprise that any verifiable definition is messy. GDallimore (Talk) 13:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the more I read your new definition and look at the sources, the more I dislike it. It is not in the sources, and is not, in my view a good definition. I've just read The Lawyer article by Morag MacDonald and there are some good points in there which I'm going to get across more strongly in the original phrasing. I'll make sure that the new definition makes clear that the patent troll doesn't have a manufacturing base, which is the key point and which differentiates from "kosher" patent holding companies who will have strong ties to manufacturers. GDallimore (Talk) 13:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you trying to accomplish here by reverting my edits, twice now, to an incorrect definition of this term? You claim a second time that my definition is unreferenced. It is factually true, and relevant, and points to an article that conforms what the sentence says. I have argued, as have others in this section and others (e.g. here), that the definition you are proposing is a fallacious one because it admits companies that own patents legitimately and do not fit the meaning of the term as it is used. There clearly a real controversy in the world over the behavior of a group of companies some people are calling "patent trolls" that buys patents on the cheap where they can for the sole purpose of extracting royalties out of companies who don't currently license the patent, rather than for exploiting the innovative technology. Some people obviously are clearly against the practice, while others defend it by saying they're not trolls or that the practice is legitimate. Are you trying to advocate for a point of view here? You are pointing only to references that propose a different meaning for the word, but only as a straw man in order to dispute that there is such a thing as a patent troll. As I said, an article about how its subject does not exist is not a proper subject for Wikipedia. If you want an unarguable reference, fine. I will quote a dictionary definition word for word. Please don't keep reverting. That is contentious editing and you are approaching WP:3R. If you have an issue we can talk about it, but again, the argument that people are misusing the word or that the concept behind the word is wrong deserves, if anything, a "criticisms" section and not the point of the article. Wikidemo 19:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to say I support Geoff on this one. IMO the current three line lead is more succinct, more accurate, and more focussed on the real issue. The issue is not companies buying patents, it is non-practising companies attempting to enforce them, and to extract "licensing fees that are grossly out of alignment with their contribution to the alleged infringer’s product or service". Jheald 19:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikidemo, your mistake is in assuming that there is a "correct" definition of the term. There is not. In fact, that is one thing that a brief review of the references makes absolutely clear. To counter this, what I have done is to combine defintions from several sources to give an overall picture, using sources that seem far more reliable than wordspy. Given the controversial and flexible nature of the term, that seems to be the most appropriate. I was going to say a whole lot more, but your combative tone, with accusations of POV and 3R warnings doesn't give me soft fuzzy feelings and I'm going to go do something more productive instead. GDallimore (Talk) 22:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There may not be a universally accepted definition, but the word obviously means something and there are some clearly incorrect definitions. Any definition that casts a broad class of legitimate patent owners into the net is not a good one and, again, seems either fallacious or part of the straw man argument that some sources are clearly making. Really, if you want a clear definition of the word why not do it? I only pointed to wordspy because it is a dictionary definition and when I paraphrased the sourced material you twice said my edits were unsourceed. Wordspy sources the same materials. It's a tertiary source itself. As for being combative, you've reverted me twice in one day, saying my edits were unsourced. That's debating through edits rather than talking. I'm not here to fight, I just don't think a constructive edit should be repeatedly reverted without some discussion. Now, if we get past that do you think there's anything wrong with the definition(s) I cite that include some element of malfeasance, opportunism, purchasing patents, etc. or do you think the word simply means someone who enforces patent rights without making or practicing the patented invention? Wikidemo 23:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

patent holding company v. patent troll

Can anyone explain to me the difference between a patent troll and a patent holding company?--Nowa 00:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Hi Nowa, There isn't much difference between a patent holding company and a patent troll. Defending patent licenses can become a business under certain circumstances.

Only just spotted this comment and guess I should response since it goes back to an edit I made, as well as to a comment you make below in my argument with JHeald over struggling with the definition of a "patent troll". NB I've made my points on that front and will wait to see if any consensus emerges.

Anyway, to respond to the question, the best definition that has been provided for a patent troll is "a patent owner which enforces patent rights against accused infringers, but does not manufacture products or supply services based on the patents in question". I personally like this definition.

Under this definition, it feels wrong to call patent holding companies created by manufactuing companies "trolls". The holding company itself may not make anything, but the only reason for the existence of the holding company is so that a related manufacturing company can simplify the procedure of obtaining licenses in different countries so that they are free to make the patented product. It also simplifies the granting of licenses to others, which is hardly trollish behaviour. Maybe the definition of "patent holding company" needs work to ensure that it excludes companies that are just holding patents with an aim to enforce them without having any relationship to a company that manufactures the patented product. Or maybe we shouldn't suggest that patent holding companies are not trolls, but explain which TYPES of patent holding companies are or aren't trolls. eg not a troll if formed by a manufacturing company or a consortium thereof.

Does anyone have a suggestion for improving the definition of a patent holding company that we can use to update this article and the Patent holding company article to clarify this distinction? GDallimore 15:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

In tax law there is a widely used term called "arms length" which could be used in a more accurate definition of "patent troll". NB past patent law in various jurisdiction required a "working model", which, if it was still in force, also would preclude a considerable share of patenting attempts.

Patent trolls avoid bearing risks and costs of bringing products to market because neither do they practice at least a portion of their patented technology (IP) nor do they act at arms length of a person or company that does practice it. Consequently patent trolls are not subject to royalties or damages but generate revenue through royalties or damages from others. This type of business model can be economically viable and is lawful in many jurisdictions. It is, however, also frowned upon as patent trolls can impose severe economic risks to organizations, of certain types and sizes depending on the industry or sector. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.18.69.83 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

Looks good to me. Let's see if anyone else weighs in. Good suggestion to move the additional information in the lead paragraph in the body of the article.--Nowa 22:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Difficulties with software patents

My point about proving prior art for software has to do with historic problems concerning rights to software. In the seventies computer hardware companies bundled their software with their hardware. The idea was that you can't 'see' software (it being 'soft') and therefore people would be unwilling to pay for it. Most companies had software on the books for 0 dollars, an unwritten rule. There was a Supreme Court precedent called Digidyne v. Data General. The Supreme Court let a 9th circuit decision stand. Digidyne wanted Data General to license its NOVA operating system called RDOS to Digidyne's clone of a DG NOVA Mainframe. Data General refused and was eventually forced into licensing the OS software because it was ruled that restricting the license to only DG hardware was an illegal tying arrangement. Soon after, IBM 'published' its DOS source for free, and otherwise we would all be RDOS experts. Data General ended up being taken over by EMC2, the lawyers fees cost them heavily. The Supreme Court decision made it not only possible to value software, but also to patent it. I believe the move by IBM was considered a protest at the time. No one believed that anyone would profit from it other than IBM (through free publicity). Microsoft is an example of a company that made big on worthless 'soft' products. It is hard to imagine today that people once felt that software was worthless without a machine. There are many successful companies with only software products. I believe Windows has facets of DG and DEC software, that could never be proved. No one is interested in those licenses today, though clearly they forged the base of a multi-million dollar empire. DEC has been taken over by HP. If you want to start a software history page in terms of litigation, I am willing to help you! Jane 17:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Jane, Fascinating history. I'm going to have to review that Digidyne decision. As far as an article goes, it looks like you have a nice start right here. Why not repost it as an article and let's see what other editors have to contribute? You should probaly add some references, such as a link to the Digidyne decision, to add support.--Nowa 18:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what this really has to do with patent trolling--though it could make an interesting article about the intersection of copyright and antitrust. Indeed, the decision in DG had little to do with valuation or patenting software. First, patenting software is usually associated with Diamond v. Diehr. Second, if anything, the choice to value software at $0 had more to do with marketing, accounting and compatability than anything else (here, buy our system and we'll give you our software for free). The fact that there were few or no standard platforms until the mid 80s meant that software (especially operating systems) wouldn't necessarily function independent of the proprietary hardware (which seems to have been the assumption made by DG at the time it wrote its RDOS). This is your argument about Microsoft, I think. In fact, the difficulty in finding prior art of software patents really is about the sheer volume of prior art that exists and no real good way to search it. Unlike other areas (electrical, chemical and mechanical) there are not the searchable databases of code. Even if there were, it's hard to imagine that even a cursory search of all the code everywhere would necessarily return results in plain language (the way a patent is written). In addition, (as a former developer) I can attest to the fact that most software is written as "here's what I want, how can I do that," and that means that most developers don't see their solutions as inventions and, thus, those "solutions" are very infrequently published or even discussed. Some of this may be changing as the field is starting to come of age invention wise. And, just my two cents, but I think that the real problem with software is discerning what is trully novel and that which is merely the software equivalent of something already known. This problem is not, of course, unique to software, but there seems to be a lot more difficulty in this area. mmmbeer^{T / C / ?} 12:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with all of that, and would add that it is still quite difficult for companies to value software, though everyone pretty much agrees that it's worth *something*. The difficulties come with attempting to value the use of the system vs. the capabilities of a system, and how to depreciate software, since code never 'wears down'. Perhaps a 'history of software development' page could be useful for this, with subheadings for licensing and financing.Jane 08:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Invention vs. Innovation

The section "Invention vs. Innovation" does not fit very well within the article. This is not an improvement to the general structure of the article. I would suggest the following structure:

1. Definition and etymology
2. Legality
3. Patent troll in practice
   1. Patent trolls strategy in more details
   2. Defense against patent trolls
4. Origins
   1. Weaknesses in the patent system said to lead to patent troll behavior
5. Benefit of patent trolls

What do you think? --Edcolins 10:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

To the extent that the purpose of this article is to clear up fuzzy thinking on patent trolls, this section is essential, and I hope it will be expanded on. The pejorative "troll" is being used in broader and broader contexts, and now being applied to almost anybody who makes any claim to owning intellectual property.

It is critical both to say what a patent troll is, and what it is not. The section on "lawfulness" is good, and this section is a complement to that section; it is designed to help non-patent professionals think about the issues in terms they may have more familiarity with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.94.25 (talk • contribs)

I respectfully do not agree with you. To me, the section "Invention vs. Innovation", while it may contain very interesting ideas, constitutes essentially original research. In a nutshell:

"Articles may not contain any previously unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas; or any new analysis or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, arguments, or ideas that serves to advance a position."

What is claimed to be "a proper distinction were made between innovation and invention" constitutes original research. This preliminary sentence: "For present purposes, we may take invention to be (...), while innovation is the (...)" is a strong evidence of original research. Moreover, "patents protect ideas, not products" is wrong, at least under European patent law. A product or a process might be patentable, an abstract idea is not patentable under European patent law. --Edcolins 19:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully don't agree with you ;), and feel that there is a benefit to making this section right, rather than rejecting it wholesale. Earlier on this talk page you pointed out, correctly in my view, that much of the outrage about patent trolls has a source in resentment, resentment which goes well beyond the technical issue of the rights or activities of patent licensing firms. I believe that this section goes to the heart of that resentment, or at least in part. Patent infringers (the source of much of the mis-information about patent trolls) claim that patent trolls are adverse to innovation. Government agencies has taken this to heart, forming committees to "protect innovation" and make proposals to weaken patent rights under that banner. It's the key controvery in patent law, and patent trolls are just the canary in the coal mine. This is my opinion, and it is stated in the talk page.

If the distinction between innnovation and invention cannot be correctly discussed in this article, then, in my view, sections such as "weaknesses in the patent process said to lead to patent troll behavior" must be deleted as well. Discussion of the functioning of the patent office, let alone claimed "weaknesses" under that view do not belong here.

In fact, I believe that a full discussion of patent trolls *does* lead necessarily to a discussion of what is a patent, what is an invention, who is an inventor, what is an innovation, what is intellectual property, and how do all of these things function in practice at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.94.73 (talk • contribs)

Verifiability

I have removed two sections on lack on Verifiability. Please do not add them again without citing sources!! This is extremely important. I duly respect original research, but not in wikipedia please. Every sentence or paragraph needs a proper citation, all the more since this is a topic prone to controversy. Please read WP:V and WP:CITE carefully. Thanks. --Edcolins 07:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ed, I think you should go ahead and delete the section on defenses against patent trolls. These "defenses" are just general patent management strategy and have nothing to do with trolls per se. It is also a type of self-promotion for the the army of advsiors which has risen up to to offer patent consulting services under the guise of defending against "trolls".

I tried to fix the section, but I think it really should go (under the editing strategy you have taken of late). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.94.17 (talk • contribs)

Good point. The section "Defense against patent trolls" (now "Response to patent trolls") can be viewed as self-promotion and may require cleanup indeed. IMHO if it is rewritten in a more neutral manner, explaining the strategies usually taken by companies or advised to companies and if this is properly supported by sources, I think it could probably stay there. The section should not recommend any strategies, but could report recommended strategies (with proper citation). --Edcolins 07:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Patent Troll Examples

I've added a section on examples of patent trolls (or at least those that have been characterized as patent trolls). I've tried to keep references to large publications (e.g. Fortune Magazine), but put a few in with blog references. Any suggestions on how much of a citation / notoriety should qualify for inclusion?

I've also noticed that they are all US. Any contributions for Europe? Japan? China? India? etc.

Once the list stabilizes, we can remove the duplicates from See Also and wikify the references. --Nowa 13:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This entire section seems to be lacking a neutral point of view, at least to my eyes 82.13.83.244 01:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

How so?--Nowa 21:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the definition is so obtuse, I don't think that meaningful examples can be made. Also, even if a meaningful example could be provided, I don't think it is appropriate to provide specific examples of a pejorative term, because Wikipedia would then itself be engaging in pejorative harassment. For example, in the entry for "Fa[expletive omitted] (slang)" or "N[-word]" you do not see a list of examples of "fa[expletive omitted]s" or N[-word]s." Similarly, I do not think it is appropriate in the instance of the pejorative term "troll" to target individuals with harassing, pejorative association. In fact, it might give rise to legal liability for Wikipedia to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.88.60 (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Weaknesses in the patent system leading to ...

(This section has been moved from above since discussion is ongoing)

Nowa, while this assertion "Extended delays encourage patent troll behavior" may be true, I am not entirely buying it. IMHO we would need at least a reference, study, or paper to support this assertion. Otherwise it will look like original research. Cheers. --Edcolins 21:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good catch. I Googled "patent troll" and "pendency" and came up with a number of references. The Baker Botts article seemed most authoritative. I also made my own graph of the EPO data on pendency. Not sure if that qualifies as "original" research or not, but hey, Be Bold as they say.--Nowa 03:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

(restart of discussion July 14, 2006)

This section does not belong in this page. It has been deleted several times, by different people, and reasserted several times by the same person. "Weaknesses in the patent office" is POV. "characteristics of the patent office" might be better. "leading to patent troll behavior" is unsupported and illogical. Imagine that the patent office were a perfect computer program which scanned all prior art, and the patent application, and immediately wrote perfect claims, with the broadest valid scope possible, and perfectly covering the invention. Nothing more and nothing less and done instantly. Would that impact the question as to whether it is reasonable, legal, or moral for persons who do not develop products based on a patent to assert the rights granted by the patent they own? No. It is irrelevant.

The implication seems to be that "patent trolls" hold weak patents, and/or exploit loopholes. Nothing supports this. There is no reason to believe that patents held by patent licensing companies are less valid, on average, than other patents. In fact one might expect the opposite, in that patents held by patent licensing companies different from the inventor will be on average stronger than patents held only by the original inventor in that a person other than the inventor has invested money in the patent. They may be presumed to have done some diligence and spent legal tender to invest in the patent.

Unsigned - Thank you for your thoughtful comments. You make an excellent point about how the patents owned by a patent holding company should, on average, be stronger than the average set of patents due to the fact that the patent holding company has done their due dilligence. My experience is that this would be true of all litigated patents for the same reason. Can you find a refrence to support this? If so, I think it would be a great addition to the article.

With respect to the content of the section on "weaknesses...", I've invited other experienced editors to opine on whether or not it meets the generally accepted Wiki requirements for proper inclusion. In the meantime, I've added it back in since the section has been vetted many times, (as you point out) and significantly modified each time to meet the objections to a particular editor(s).

I've also taken into account your point about "weaknesses" being POV. Here again you make a good point, but I'm not quite sure how to retitle the section. I like your suggestion of "characteristics", but I'm afraid that's too broad. One could argue that all characteristics of the patent system lead to patent troll behavior. I wanted to focus on the nonideal aspects of the patent process that not only encourages patent troll behavior but also leads to the the large negative public reaction to the enforcement of patent rights.

The phrase "leading to patent troll behavior", however, I believe is fully supported by the references. If you can find references that draw different conclusions, then please modify the article accordingly.--Nowa 09:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Upon reflection I attempted to trim some POV from the section. Feel free improve.--Nowa 11:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Anticompetitive Behavior

There is some debate as to whether or not Patent Trolls engage in anticompetitive behavior such as tying. I think it would be worthwhile to err on the side of caution and leave the section out of the article for now until it is more fully vetted. Can those who feel strongly about the subject explain their positions more fully? Concrete examples would help.--Nowa 22:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see the mention of tying in the article or in what you deleted. I think the Supreme Court vets the argument that patent enforcement is anti-competitive. Patents seem to be by definition anti-competitive ("exclusive right..." -- U.S. Constitution). Regardless, it would be good to cite an example or source that ties (pun intended) monopoly power to patent trolling, rather than having Wikipedia imply this obvious inference as original research. --71.161.214.252 02:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As also mentioned in the article, focused discussion about "patent trolls" becomes unmanageable when people start bring in things which have nothing to do with the subject and betray still other points of view about still other subjects. The usual things are complaints about the insanity of the patent office and that patents themselves are a bad thing, as is the case here. Until somebody can give some evidence that patent trolls are particularly liable to tying, committing fraud, holding invalid patents or some other bit of mud-slinging, better to stay on message. Patents most certainly do give exclusive rights for a limited period of time. That's the deal inventors get for disclosing their inventions to the public. The pubic benefit argument for patents was worked out by the framers of the constitution, and my personal POV is that performed the balancing act exactly right, and it has on the whole worked well to stimulate the world economy. Some people don't like patents, so they call anybody a "troll" who had an idea before they did. Other people hate "real estate trolls" for charging fees for property they do not own, hate taxes to pay for things they do not use, etc. All entitled to their opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.145.209 (talk • contribs)

Edcollins, Nowa, please help. This person is making strange/inflammatory/illogical edits. 1) "Motivations" as section title does not correspond to the material in the section. A citation of a alleged troll allegedly tying does not support the allegation that patent trolls are liable to tying, a proposition which is on the face of it highly unlikely. It's like saying "a green person was accused of stealing, therefore green people steal." Even if the green person were tried and convicted of stealing, it does not support "green people generally steal" which is the inference this editor wants readers to make. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.145.209 (talk • contribs)

Is this discussion still open? Or can we consider it settled? --Edcolins 10:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if adding speculation and then citing it counts for settlement, then I guess we're settled:

Patent trolls, being non-manufacturers, are typically unable to commit acts of patent misuse involving antitrust violations, since such requires significant market power on the part of the alleged abuser

--69.173.175.94 17:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reworded the disputed sentence to indicate that it may need to be taken with a grain of salt, as it may be considered as a speculation. I have to say I am still not entirely satisfied about the wording of the sentence since strictly speaking the article does not speak about the special case of patent trolls. Do you dispute the reliability of the article? --Edcolins 07:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ed, I don't see where the alledged "speculation" is, perhaps user 69.173.175.94 could clarify. Is it a speculation that a) patent trolls are non-manufacturers? b) that "market power" is a necessary part of the test for illegal tying? c) other?

a) is a matter of definition of "patent troll" as worked up in this article, b) is a judgement as a matter of law, once could write a legal brief here if it were appropriate. If other, what other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.145.209 (talk • contribs)

Adding the phrase "considered by some" to avoid speculation actually doesn't accomplish the intended task.

The article at localtechwire.com contains an interesting discussion on patents, but it has nothing to do with patent trolls. It argues that patents are not free from competition, since they are exposed to competition by alternative inventions that are also under patent. It's an important point, but it's weakened even by the author's own comments, "However, it is clear that ownership of a patent sometimes will permit certain kinds of conduct that would otherwise be considered an antitrust violation."

It also argues antitrust activity via patents is accomplished by "patent misuse", and that this misuse is tempered by the U.S. court system, who has used antitrust laws to temper patent misuse. Excuse my rudeness, but "duh".

So the current paragraph doesn't even support what is in the cited article.

I think we should summarize anti-trust activity by returning the mentioning of the Phillips case and the law.com article, rather than publishing original research on what patent trolls could theoretically be -- or "considered by some". --72.92.129.124 01:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Benefits / Harm from Patent Trolls

Anonymous made a number of interesting speculations about benefits/harm of patent trolls. Whereas I don't normally like to simply delete contributions made in good faith, I'd like to vet these speculations here. If they can supported by references and if they are specific to trolls (as opposed to patents in general) then I'm happy to see them added back into the main article.--Nowa 14:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Very strange and the anonymous comments are not well qualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.93.61 (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Speculations moved from article for further vetting

• The will to design around patents may stimulate new ideas. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 
• To the extent that trolls aid inventors who would otherwise be unable to defend their inventions, they encourage new inventions ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 
• The resulting increased litigation creates an increased burden on the court systems and a resulting increase in taxation to support increased operational costs of the courts. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 
• A resulting net transfer of wealth from buisnesses that created wealth to attorneys that take wealth from others. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› --Nowa 14:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Objections to carte blanche removal of edits

Nowa: I don't know why you deleted all of my work of today. These are not speculations (please explain how the statements made could be otherwise),they are not original research (it is permissible, even laudatory to summarize in a way which makes the material accessible), and are extensively supported by excellent, well-researched citations and cross references (did you read them?). The editor who simply dismissed any benefit as "B.S" expressed emotion typical of anti-troll sentiment, and can only with great indulgence be considered to have been acting in good faith. I worked hard to be thus indulgent, by trying to address these emotions head on and identify their source. The term "troll" was exactly chosen to instigate such emotions and this article does not do service to its subject unless it meets the pejorative head on. Weasly cop-outs like "some people think that" are just that--they don't address the issue. I believe Jimmy Wales said as much and I'm just paraphrasing him here. I can find the exact quote if need be.

As is often the case, that editor did a service here though in a rather crude way, by suggesting that the benefits section be balanced by a "harm" section. I agree, and I'm going with that. However, for this to work best and to be most fair, it is important to let each case be made as convincingly as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.145.209 (talk • contribs)

I walked through Nowa's edits and I see nothing he deleted worth keeping. Most of his work was non controversial and useful since it reduces duplicate arguments made in the article. He also made a conclusion I had previously made, that a lot of this is not troll-specific, but is instead more appropriately mentioned at patent. --72.92.129.124 04:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC) (Thanks for your review --Nowa 11:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC))

162.83.145.209 : Your criticisms are well taken and your anger is justified. It was clear to me that you did put a lot of work and careful thought into your contributions, including finding supporting documents. It was with much reluctance and careful thought that I edited as I did. I read your sections and references carefully. I removed each section one by one with explanations so that you could see how they might be improved. In retrospect I probably had too heavy a hand. For that I apologize.

Having said that, I offer my assistance in further developing one or more of your points and adding it back in.

For example, your point about patent trolls fostering innovation by encouraging infringers to develop design-arounds (e.g. Research in Motion design-around for NTP, Inc. BlackBerry patents) rather than pay license fees, is a good one. Your reference supports this to a certain extent by relating an anonymous case where a company developed a design-around rather than pay a license fee to a patent. For this point to be included as a benefit of patent trolls, however, we need a reference that shows that:

• The design-around was actually better than the original patented technology.
• That the design-around would not have been developed but for the enforcement of the patent.
• That the patent would not have been enforced but for the activities of a patent troll.

I do know from my experience as an R&D manager at a major chemical company, that manufacturers routinely invent design-arounds to avoid infringing issued patents. This practice didn’t emerge with the recent notoriety of patent trolls, however. It’s been standard operating proceedure since there were patents.--Nowa 10:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

---

OK, I'll look for such a thing, though I think the barrier for an illustrative work-around is unncessarily high "as good as the infringing technology" should be sufficient, rather than "better than". In the case of NTP, the claim was "as good as" as I recall.

To the more general point as to whether certain harm/benefit accrues to patents in general or trolls in particular, and should therefore be discussed in the article on "patents" rather than "patent trolls": I think it is a key issue for this article, and comes up in nearly every section (e.g. are "strategies to defend against patent trolls" in fact "strategies to defend against patents"?) The statement "The patent troll strategy is a lawful and expected result of present patent law." is correct, but I think *too* succinct, elipitical. People are upset about patents and go gunning for trolls, and the usual suspects: lawyers, rather than facing the issue head on. Thus I think you have to clearly, completely, and insistently draw out the consequences of "if patents are good for society, then trolls are good (and if carve outs for non-material production, then why exactly?). And it is essential that the scope of patents be clarified, by whatever means. The converse is pretty obvious, if patents are bad then trolls are bad.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.145.209 (talk • contribs)

trolls and bad patents

I looked at the citation. Interesting in a number of ways, but it does not support the assertion made. In fact, the authors, apparently knowing that their article might be misused to fan the flames of patent troll hatred, made a number of explicit disclaimers, e.g.

1) Page 8 "Bad patents should not be confused with so-called patent trolls. Popular and academic discussion of patent trolls is commonly linked to questions of patent quality, but the issues are in fact severable. We are not aware of any evidence that patent trolls are more likely to have or assert bad patents than practicing entities"

This continues:

2) Page 9 (this is where the quote put into the wikipedia artle was taken out of context), "The key argument against patent trolls is not that their assertions are necessarily invalid but rather that they are in a position to negotiate license fees which are grossly out of alignment with their contribution to the alleged infringer's product or service. The reforms addressed in this paper do not begin to address that problem, except in so far as a particular troll is relying on a bad patent."

Note that the further citation on the aspect "The key argument..." is to a preprint "on file with the authors".

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.145.209 (talk • contribs)

I have reverted the deletion. The focus of the paper is indeed not patent trolls, but the different problem of the consequences of patents which should never have been issued.

But that does not take away from its clear definition of what is the key point of contention against patent trolls -- that they are perceived to be "in a position to negotiate license fees which are grossly out of alignment with their contribution to the alleged infringer's product or service".

I thought that was a well written piece of phrasing, which sets out rather clearly the defining issue about perceived patent trolls, a good distillation and a very appropriate addition to the lead paragraph.

I also commend pages 9-10 of the paper [3] as a very clear exposition (with indicative dollar costs) of the dilemma an SME can face on receiving a patent troll demand for a bad patent. Jheald 12:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Carla has many options, including:

1) remove the infringing aspect of the product, possibly replacing with a non-infringing substitute.

2) band together with other entities against which the patent has been asserted to litigate the patent.

3) negotiate a revenue-share agreement rather than a flat fee--this limits the size of the damage to a portion of the profits. This is what royalties are for.

4) Become indignant that the patent holder is a "troll" and try to generate press in which the patent holder is slandered as a "troll".

Which option is most effective may depend on the circumstances, and option 4) is certainly inexpensive.

The "key point" is not the author's point, it is made by somebody else in a preprint (with an inflamatory, non-academic title, by the way). I'm not going to take responsibility for re-deleting this, I've made my point that you are abusing this citation. I guess the only real authorities on this are the authors themselves.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.145.209 (talk • contribs)

The authors clearly agree with the point, or they wouldn't have made it so firmly. They do not put it in quotation marks, so it is reasonable to assume the phrasing is their own, and therefore to cite them when quoting it.

As regards the preprint, Mark Lemley [4] and Carl Shapiro [5] are well-known and respected figures working in the area of patent economics. "Patent Holdup" and "Royalty Stacking" are standard terms in the economic analysis of possible effects of patents. Their paper is not necessarily playing up such scenarios - it could equally well be arguing that Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking are less serious problems than some academics presume; or that they are only probems in certain special cases. I don't see anything non-academic or inflammatory about the title.

Evidently, the line you wish to see deleted is not Original Research. Are you disputing it? Or are you offering better references to support it? Jheald 13:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not at all clear to me that the authors agree with this point. What is clear to me is that they _do not_ want to go there, they are trying to stress that their article is not about patent trolls, it is about bad patents. (And they point out that there is no reason to believe patent trolls typically hold bad patents). What did they really want to say? Ask them. If this point is research at all (I see no evidence for it), I dispute that it is due to the authors of the article cited. Would you rather cite the Lemley/Shapiro article? Where is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.145.209 (talk • contribs)

Come on. The authors make the statement "The key argument against patent trolls is not that their assertions are necessarily invalid, but rather that they are in a position to negotiate licensing fees that are grossly out of alignment with their contribution to the alleged infringer’s product or service" quite unequivocally, as a statement of fact.

Why is this so controversial to you? Surely this is, in a nutshell, the difference of implication between the phrase "patent troll" and "patent licensing company"? Patent troll is a pejorative term; the authors usefully identify the key point of contention.

The Lemley/Shapiro preprint can be found here. It explains, theoretically and empirically, how it is possible to negotiate licensing fees so out of alignment with their contribution to the alleged infringer’s product or service. Jheald 14:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

I suggest that the introductory paragraph is not the best place to cite this article. It is certainly interesting, the points it makes are good ones, and I see no reason for it not to be linked in this article. But it is hardly worthy of such a prime position when the conclusions are so open to interpretation and difference of opinion. GDallimore 14:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that defining the key point of contention regarding patent trolls is absolutely appropriate for the introductory paragraph -- the introductory paragraph is significantly stronger for it.

On the question of difference of opinion - what difference of opinion? Who is challenging the point, that this is the key point of contention against patent trolls? I don't so far see any challenge on the substance at all. Jheald 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I am contesting it. We can go all the way back to the beginning and look at Detkin's original definition, which specifically includes the charge that trolls assert bad patents. That charge it seems didn't stick well, so people try other ones. So you can find many other attempts to pin down "what do we talk about when we talk about patent troll" and you see all variety of things, "trolls are those who maliciously wait to spring on unsuspecting practicioners", "trolls overcharge", "trolls depend on the patent system being broken" "trolls are extortionists" "trolls abuse patents by tying" and on and on. And you can find citations for every one of these charges. What this wikipedia article ended up with is that the only commonality is that patent trolls are not practioners of the art in which the patent claims. And that's all you can say by way of summary. You cannnot boil down the patent troll business to say that overcharging is the "key point". Key for some,not for others. And, btw, the Lemley/Shapiro article is *not* in agreement with the Federal Circuit, as they themselves admit.They are making an argument, they are not making law.

If necessary/beneficial to list all the things patent trolls have been accused of, that could be a separate section (perhaps an extension of "harm caused by patent trolls").

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.145.209 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, had the two papers mixed up a bit, so what I'm about to say doesn't quite follow on from my previous comment.

Anyway, I can think of a few reasons why this quote should end up in the body of the article. Firstly, it's based on an analysis of the US patent situation, where triple damages can be awarded and injunctions (pre eBay v Merc, at least) were far more likely than in the UK, say. Therefore, the statement is not true of patent trolls in general, but only a subset in one country where the potential damage from patent trolls is far greater. I feel that the opening paragraph should only contain statements that are true in general.

Secondly, both articles are of limited relevance to patent trolls. I see no way that these two papers can therefore be seen as being as strongly supportive of this opinion as you seem to be saying. Lemley and Shapiro have made a study about licensing and, as an aside, have stated "The potential for injunctive relief against the whole product can and does permit so-called "patent trolls" to hold up defendants by threatening to enjoin products that are predominantly non-infringing." (page 8 of Lemley and Shapiro). This has been extended in the second paper to the "key argument" thing.

Thirdly, the ability to charge large royalty rates is just one of many things that people have a beef about with patent trolls: such as that they don't actually make anything and can simply charge others for making something that they may have developed independently. Having this quotation in the opening paragraph makes it look as if this is the only thing people have against patent trolls, which actually weakens the article when there are other objections as well. It is probably a key "economic" objection to trolls, but that doesn't make it the most important objection overall in either fact or in opinion.

So, I think this quotation and a reference to the Lemley and Shapiro paper should go in the section about "Aspects of the patent system affecting patent infringement and enforcement" since this is what the original article is actually about - how injunctions can affect infringement proceedings. This is actually something which is missing from the article and I think its inclusion would indeed make the article as a whole stronger. The sub-section about "early settlement" in the "Response to patent trolls" section could also benefit from some support which these articles do appear to provide. The section "Harm from patent trolls" could do with some beefing up, too.

So, there's my case. :) GDallimore 16:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me respond.

Firstly, I agree that the body of the article could benefit from a discussion of the Lemley/Shapiro paper. *But* I believe the Sag/Roade quote is on the money, is useful to the introduction, and should stay there. Nowa has been stressing that the article needs to focus distinctly on what is specifically patent trolling, rather than getting into issues which are much more general in any patent assertion, patent licensing or patent economics. IMO that is absolutely right; and setting out, right in the intro, what is the distinctive point of contention about "trolls" is therefore a big step in the right direction. It seems to me that absolutely what is distictive about "patent troll" is that it is such a pejorative term. It is not a term used by licensors, or by happy licensees: rather, it is a term used by unhappy licensees (or defendants), trying to persuade people that they are being forced by the system, unjustly, to pay out for a license which they should not have to pay for, either not at all, or not at that price. The Sag/Roade quote, it seems to me, captures this exactly -- and it explains perfectly the otherwise apparently arbitrary comment, why technology transfer offices would not normally be considered to be patent trolls.

Furthermore, if we compare the quote's talk of entities "in a position to negotiate licensing fees that are grossly out of alignment with their contribution to the alleged infringer’s product or service", it seems to me that umbrella encompasses each of the specific cases 162.83.145.209 raises:

• "entities that broadly assert specious patents across an industry for the purpose of generating nuisance value settlements" - Check. If the patents are specious they have no value at all, so any nuisance value settlement is indeed grossly out of alignment.
• "trolls are those who maliciously wait to spring on unsuspecting practicioners" - so they can extract disproportionate fees. Check.
• "trolls overcharge". And how do they manage that...? Check.
• "trolls depend on the patent system being broken". If licensing fees are systematically being extracted that are grossly out of alignment to the contribution, that would be a sign that the system was broken. Check.
• "trolls are extortionists". That would seem to imply they have a power to extract license fees out of proportion to their contribution. Check.
• "trolls abuse patents by tying". I'm not sure this is true particularly often. But if they were using such tying, that would seem to put them in a position to extract disproportionate licensing fees. So, Check.

The Sag/Roade quote seems to hold up pretty well. A patent troll is not just a licensing company. The phrase has a deeper charge, and the Sag/Roade quote nails it. Jheald 18:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

@GDallimore: So nobody in the UK ever finds themselves having to pay grossly more for a patent than they think it's worth? Hmmm. I have a bridge I'd like to sell you...

• "can simply charge others for making something that they may have developed independently". i.e. they can extract licensing fees that are grossly disproportionate to their contribution. Check.

Jheald 18:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

OK, so "patent troll" means anybody who wants more for a license than the infringer is willing to pay? It's just haggling over the price and covering it up with righteous indignation, propaganda and sophistry? But then, once again, we're talking about any patent holder, and what the infringer is actually _willing_ to pay is always 0, from their point of view the patentee's contribution is always de minimis. But what specifically distinguishes a troll from anyone else who would assert a property right in general or a patent in particular from other patent holders?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.145.209 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, this is the kind of territory that the article should be looking at. This is the issue that will divide the licensor and the licensee, with the licensee calling the licensor a troll, the licensor responding that they're not, and both trying to appeal to the court of public opinion.

It's worth noting that there are some very happy licensees out there - probably most licensees in fact. Think of classic examples like the Pilkington float glass process, or exclusive territory licenses for new drug patents. The licensee is getting access to new technology they never otherwise would have had, at a price which the end consumer is more than willing to pay. That's the patent system working well, and everyone's happy.

The patent troll issue comes up when (according to the licensee) patents are being asserted which are not justified by the contribution; in the extreme case, where they are not even justified by the value of the feature in the end-market, but the licensee cannot afford to redesign.

It's almost exclusively a problem with non-practising entities for the majors, because almost anybody else they can bully into shape and force to cross-license.

Is it all just righteous indignation, propaganda and sophistry? That's a point of view, and quite often it may be. But there is a case, both theoretical and practical, to analyse here. When might a company pay more for a license than the contribution was "worth"? Is that economically necessarily a bad thing? How should one judge? Jheald 20:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

You say, "It's almost exclusively a problem with non-practising entities for the majors, because almost anybody else they can bully into shape and force to cross-license.", and I believe, using your own argumentation technique, this leads us right back to the original "key point" about patent trolls: they are non-practicing. I think we even agree that "because they are non-practicing, the majors can't bully them to exchange rights for rights rather than rights for money, and that, they perceive, is a problem." I clearly don't know where synthesis ends and original research begins, but this seems like a lot of weight to put on a sentence taken out of context from an article which seems to be doing everything it can to stay out of the patent troll cesspool.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.145.209 (talk • contribs)

Interesting and fruitful discussion. One of the fascinating things about watching this article evolve is how we grapple with a term that people adapt to their own situation.

Does this article from the Financial Times shed any light on the current dispute? [6]--Nowa 01:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Another very influential source our article might make more of is the 2003 FTC report, To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy, notably pages 101 and 148-152.

Although the FT defines patent trolls as "a company that owns patents and sues to defend them but does not make anything related to the patent", and the FTC report prefers what it calls the neutral term "non practicing entity", I submit that in both cases the real concern (ie the key point of contention) in both texts is the perceived ability of such entities to extract revenues out of proportion to their contribution, particularly but not exclusively through "hold up".

Not all NPEs are patent trolls; it does seem to me the key argument an NPE will make if it seeks to persuade public opinion that it is not a troll, is that it was seeking an appropriate royalty for its contribution. Jheald 08:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

The FTC report seems to summarize a lot of the arguments about patent trolls, but it does not serve as its own lexicographer by redefining patent trolls, it just gives them another name "non praciticing entity".

Again, I think you are right that one of the real reason that discussion about trolls generates so much heat and so little light is that mostly people don't talk about/admit what is really driving them. That is type of discussion slanderous terms are meant to evoke. I even think you're right that what gets major corporations dander up is that they can't use their tired threats about counterclaims, abusive discovery tactics and the rest of the daily arsenal of a corporate IP department against trolls. It's like a traditional army getting mad at a guerrilla army for "not fightin' fair". I've tried to point out other such aspects of "the real reasons" and have gotten shall we say mild rebuke for doing so from those more learned in the ways of wikipedia than myself. And I don't regret this. It's all a stimulating release from real work.

To summarize, your observations, if they belong in this article at all, do not belong in the intro and should not redefine "patent troll". Please remove them from that section. If you can rework the "benefits/harm" sections to encompass your "real reason" and other "real reasons" (both pro and con) I personally think that would be cool/a contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.145.209 (talk • contribs)

Entire article is biased

Having a substantive discussion about pure-IP companies under the title of "patent trolls" is inherently biased. This article should simply describe the pejorative term and its origin, while pointing to a real article on pure-IP companies with a discussion of why they are good or bad.

This article as it is simply proves the complete bias of this community.

How about putting the article for "Californians" under "Californicators?" Torokun 18:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is biased; at least in the sense that it is mostly about the legal perspective of the question while it e.g. more or less neglects the economic and socioeconomic sides. The issue is of course also of a legal nature and should be discussed as such - which is important and to which many individuals that obviously seem to have a legal background have contributed. Nevertheless, there is a call for economists and common sense views to come forward. There is a higher, if you wish, "entrepreneural or visionary perspective" from which all regulations ultimately flow. Discussing what a "patent troll" might be and whether it's activities are "good" or "bad" for society requires more than law alone. If the views on the topic are indifferent and remain that way it may as well be advisable to opt for a simplified administration (law) rather than to complicate things further.

I agree with Torokon. I also find the entire article internally confused, difficult to follow and inappropriate in its scope. It reads like a paper by large corporations seeking to stigmatize "different" competitors (without their large manufacturing resources), and bases that stigma on the weakest of arguments: stating that they do not "intend" to manufacture themselves. This is a very silly, pejorative distinction - architects frequently have no intent to build a building, rolling wheelbarrows and mixing concrete themselves, but we have no policy issue with them or a company that enforces their copyright. I suggest that the article simply note the derogatory use and list the users and the oppressed as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.88.95.56 (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). --Edcolins (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fenner Investments

Whereas I appreciate the contribution of Fenner Investments as an alleged patent troll and whereas one could certainly make the argument that Fenner Investments meets the definition of a patent troll as expressed in the article, nonetheless I still could not find any reference that actually uses the term "troll" to describe Fenner Investments.

One of the purposes of only listing those that have been described in the media (whatever that means these days) as being a "troll" is to illustrate how the term is actually used.

Perhaps another approach would be for the original editor to post a short article on Fenner Investments with a link back to this one. You could put something in like "The business model and behaviour of Fenner Investments is similar to that of a patent troll"--Nowa 15:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I made the alteration you requested. This is my first attempt at a Wikipedia edit so I appreciate the additional information you provided. I originally learned about the article through a slashdot article that did have "patent troll" in the text of the summary so I have revised the entry to point to that submission which also leads to the full article and discussion. I hope this meets the criteria. Michaelwigle 18:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Michaelwigle, Perfect. Thanks for your contribution.--Nowa 02:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

IBM listed as patent troll -- Why?

Why is IBM listed as a patent troll? It's based off of a comment in a story. Are we using random comments off the web for sources now? Why does Nigel Johnstone's comment count as a source?

If you're going to label a company a patent troll, you better have better source, at least in my opinion.

Nobody here is accusing IBM of being a troll, it is merely citing the allegation by someone else that IBM is acting in a trollish manner. I do not personally agree with the accusation myself, but that is based upon my understanding of what a troll is.

The problem is, there is no definition of what a patent troll is, and the term is in the process of being refined by its usage. This article therefore (correctly in my view) includes a section that collects together different ways in which the term troll has been applied to corporations and individuals. This might lead to better understanding of the term.

Perhaps that section of the article needs improving by exlpaining in a bit more detail why each company in question has been labelled a troll - ie IBM labelled troll for making money from licensing not manufacturing - and how this compares with other usages (this usage being particularly broad!) GDallimore 17:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The source is not the news article itself, but rather a comment on the article. That's why I asked the question in the first place. If I were to accuse Google right now of being a patent troll and then source it in this article, it would be the equivalent. That's why I think it is ridiculous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.69.76.40 (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Updated IBM entry for specific incidence of being characterized as a patent troll and as reported in media [7] and [8]--Nowa 20:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Requirement for inclusion in "alleged patent troll" section

I think my comment just above might be the start of something useful. I therefore propose the following requirements for a company/individual being included in the alleged patent troll section of the article.

• 1. The allegation must be sourced
• 2. The source must explain WHY there is an allegation of trollish behaviour. Simple name-calling is not sufficient.
• 3. The article should include at least a summary of that explanation, preferably indicating at a minimum which of the two main categories of troll is at issue: (a) not researching or (b) not manufacturing.

Under these requirement, Fenner still doesn't get a place in the article because the newly added Slashdot reference is (as is typical of the site!) based merely on name calling and provides no explanation. I'll leave the reference in there for now while this topic is discussed

Thoughts? GDallimore 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

GD, My thought is to leave Fenner in there because of the Slashdot reference. The original posting alone may not be dispositive, but the numerous comments all echoing the same sentiment add enough support.

An interesting experiment, however, might be to see if there is any patent enforcing company that the commentators on slashdot would ever dispute as being a patent troll no matter how justified their enforcement is. I suspect not. This leads to the conclusion that the term patent troll says more about who is saying it or what forum it's being said in than who it's being said about.

If my speculation has merit (or if someone can provide an authoritative source), then perhaps the definition of patent troll should be modified to be something like "Patent Troll is a derogatory term used by (fill in the blank) to describe a company or person that enforces their patent rights"--Nowa 02:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Having read Slashdot on and off for some years now, to me there seem to be three prevailing notions about patents on Slashdot:

• 1. If you don't actually sell a product based on your patent, you have no business suing others over infringement.
• 2. Patents may or may not suck by definition, but the way the USPTO assigns them is beyond belief.
• 3. By definition any software patent whatsover is invalid, and should have never been granted. Personally, I think this is correct, as patents cannot be granted on algorithms. Thusfar any software patent case brought before the supreme court has upheld this view (to my knowledge.)

As far as notion 1 goes, this also holds for companies who used to sell a product, but:

• 1. Failed to get any market traction with their product, and are now suing for infringement by unrelated products.
• 2. Who's original version of the product was simply made obsolete by a 'better' mass-marketed competing product, and are now suing the competitor 'out of spite'.

-- Limn 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the title of the section. "Alleged" sounds like POV to me. It sounds like an endorsement of the negative and illegal character of the patent troll behavior. The term is derogatory but the behavior must be explained in a neutral manner in the article. But we still need a criterion for inclusion indeed. --Edcolins 22:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added a criterion (somehow based on WP:BIO). Just a try. I concur that there should be some explanation for each use, which helps to understand the context. --Edcolins 22:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Patent Troll Taxonomy

As the list of alleged patent trolls grows, it might be worthwhile to develop a taxonomy. Right now we have "corporations" and "individuals". Viewed from the perspective of technology, however, all of the examples presented are for inventions in either the electronics or software fields. Are there no patent trolls in pharmaceuticals? chemicals? consumer products?

I don't think it adds anything to the article to list more software/electronics examples, but examples from these other technologies would be very illuminating.

Similarly, all patent trolls with the exception of ADC Tech K.K are US based. I specifically searched for non US entities characterized as "patent trolls" and ADC was all I could find. Are there no other Japanese examples? Any European? Chinese? Indian?

I realize we are getting dangerously close to doing original research here, so any references that discuss these issues would be appreciated.--Nowa 12:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This page needs cleanup

It uses large words unnecessarily. Instead of: This will hinder the ability of the larger audience to read this article, one could say: most people will have trouble reading this article.

Please reword. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.146.115.227 (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. --Edcolins 20:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2