This report introduces the term P-LECs:
- Participating in the IP market over the last three to five years, and importantly adding significant liquidity, are what some people refer to as patent trolls (we refer to them more appropriately as Patent Licensing and Enforcement Companies or “P-LECs”).
If this term ever takes off, this paper would be useful to cite to show that P-LECs is just another term for "patent troll".
Exhibit 9 of that article is interesting. They present it as proof that:
- "The left side data in Exhibit 8 [ciaran: typo, they mean "9"] indicate that if a company had IP, it got a second round of capital 84 percent of the time. If a company did not have IP, it got a second round of funding 50 percent of the time."
But the left side "with IP" totals to only 14 investments, initial and second-round funding combined, while the right side "no IP" totals to 59. Doesn't that show that companies without IP are four times more likely to get funding? Even if we only look at second-round funding, the levels are 2.5 times higher in the "no IP" category. (It's a pity they use the term IP, but they seem to mean "patents") Ciaran 10:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 Split into aggressors and non-practicing entities?
It's sometimes hard to know if a company is a troll or not. For example, Emblaze has filed suit against MS and Apple. I've never heard of Emblaze and I don't intend spending much time reading up about their company, but I'd like to document their patent aggression. ...I'll come back another day to sketch this out more. Ciaran 08:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 English/American spelling
For consistency, should standardize (or standardise) on practicing vs. practising.