|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | {{navbox}}
| + | MmK16N <a href= "http:// njrazaxgirur.com/"> njrazaxgirur</a>, [ url=http:// cmiuggasccjn.com/] cmiuggasccjn[/ url], [ link=http:// adajkblblbbn.com/] adajkblblbbn[/ link], http:// hxbdvrfzkjgv.com/ |
| − | A '''patent troll''' is a derogatory term used to characterise a company that acquires [[patents]] for the purpose of extracting patent royalties from product developers.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Patent trolls attract a lot of media attention but it's important to remember that the problems caused by [[software patents]] are much '''[[more than trolls]]'''.
| |
| − | | |
| − | A narrower term is '''non-practising entity''' ('''NPE'''), which denotes a sub-category of patent trolls whose ''only'' activity in a domain is patent trolling. One definition of NPE is "''an entity that does not have the capabilities to design, manufacture, or distribute products that have features protected by the patent''".<ref>Definition used by PriceWaterhouseCoopers in their [[2009 patent litigation study]]</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | As evidence that "patent troll" has a broader definition, [[Microsoft]] is often called a patent troll,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/salesforcecoms-benioff-likens-microsoft-to-patent-alley-thug/34846|title=Salesforce.com's Benioff likens Microsoft to patent 'alley thug'|quote=The reality is that these patent trolls are unfortunately just part of doing business and technology these days.}}</ref> despite making and marketing a lot of software itself.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Who do they harm most?==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Patent trolls (and NPEs) are mostly a problem for the large software corporations such as [[IBM]], [[Microsoft]], [[Google]], and [[Apple]].<ref>https://www.patentfreedom.com/research.html</ref> Patent trolls are generally ''not'' a problem for [[free software]] projects, although a large software company could be targeted for its distribution of said software. Free software projects suffer more from [[harm with neither litigation nor threats]] and the [[harm to standards]].
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Why a "practising" requirement wouldn't suffice==
| |
| − | | |
| − | One suggestion is to require that litigators practise the patent in order to demand damages, however, there seem to be fundamental problems with this: How should courts deal with litigators who claim to have the ''intention'' to practise the patent in the future? or litigators who say that they ''are'' in the process of practising the patent and their lack of a tangible product is because they're still in the fund raising phase?
| |
| − | | |
| − | It's also unreasonable for fields such as pharmaceuticals, where it's normal to spend 10 years on development before having a product to show.
| |
| − | | |
| − | In any case, this sort of requirement would do nothing against a company that has a trivial or tangential product (which may not even be making money). Any litigator could make a phantom project before going to court, so this requirement would be easily reduced to a formality.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==How to protect only the big companies against trolls==
| |
| − | | |
| − | There are certain software companies who want to solve the problems caused to them by patent trolls, but at the same time they want to continue to use their own software patents against other software developers. These companies don't want to fix the unfair system, they just want to be the ones profiting from the unfair system. So they support:
| |
| − | | |
| − | * Making harsh measures such as injunctive relief harder to achieve (this has been partly achieved in the US case [[EBay v. MercExchange (2006, USA)]])
| |
| − | * Making it harder to block imports and exports (for example, in the US, via the [[United States International Trade Commission|US International Trade Commission]]
| |
| − | * Reducing the damages that patent holders can expect
| |
| − | * Making particularly low damage for cases where the patent holder is a non-practising entity
| |
| − | | |
| − | Each of these steps is somewhat useful for society too, but it will never solve the problem, and it distracts politicians and judges from the real solution.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Activity levels==
| |
| − | | |
| − | According to Stanford University's Lex Machina,<ref>http://technologizer.com/2010/01/07/patents-trolls-they-do-exist/</ref> patent trolls account for 30% of all patent litigation.
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Google]]'s Head of Patents and Patent Strategy said in March 2009:[http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2009/03/patent-reform-needed-more-than-ever.html] "''Of the 20 patent lawsuits filed against Google since late 2007, all but two have been filed by plaintiffs who don’t make or sell any real product or service — in other words, by non-practicing entities or “patent trolls.”''"
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Troll companies==
| |
| − | Here are some examples of companies that are considered patent trolls:
| |
| − | | |
| − | * [[Acacia Research Corporation]]
| |
| − | * [[Blackboard inc.]]
| |
| − | * [[Intellectual Ventures]]
| |
| − | * [[WebEx]] - a company that acquired [[NCR]]'s patent portfolio [http://falseprecision.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/02/my-dumb-softwar.html] [http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2010/02/patent-litigation-weekly-inside-googles-first-patent-trial.html]
| |
| − | * [[EpicRealm]]<ref>http://www.pubpat.org/epicrealmdynamicwebsites.htm</ref>
| |
| − | * [[MobileMedia Ideas LLC]]<ref>http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2010/04/mobilemedia-ideas-v-apple.html</ref>
| |
| − | * [[Divine e-commerce patents|Divine]], who bought and enforced [[Webpage and e-commerce patents|e-commerce patents]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | An example of a grey area is Microsoft. They clearly do practise their patents, but are still called a troll by some.<ref>http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/347792/salesforce_com_ceo_says_microsoft_patent_troll_/</ref>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Troll incidents== | |
| − | | |
| − | * Google Fights Back And Wins Against Bogus Patent Lawsuit From Guy Who Couldn't Even Code His 'Invention' [http://techdirt.com/articles/20100223/0315518267.shtml][http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2010/02/patent-litigation-weekly-inside-googles-first-patent-trial.html]
| |
| − | | |
| − | <blockquote>
| |
| − | While the broad facts of the case—a pair of entrepreneurs with one failed business idea, almost no computer programming experience, and a couple of patents march into court waving those patents and demand $600 million from one of the most successful companies of the digital age—might seem far-fetched, but they’re actually quite commonplace."
| |
| − | </blockquote>
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Formative factors==
| |
| − | | |
| − | A similar problem is companies who do develop products, but when their product fails, they change their focus to extracting money from more-successful companies.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The problem is particularly acute when a company fails, and the only assets it has left are its patents. The receivers have a legal duty to shareholders to obtain maximum value from the remaining assets, and this may involve pursuing competitors who have succeeded in exploiting and marketing similar concepts to the ones that the failing company failed to exploit and market. The more successful the competitor, the better the chance of extracting a generous out-of-court settlement. Thus patents reward failure and penalise success.
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
| |
| − | * [[2009 patent litigation study]] - report from PriceWaterhouseCoopers which discusses non-practising entities
| |
| − | * [[Calculating infringement damages in the USA]] - what's up for grabs
| |
| − | * [[Litigation]]
| |
| − | * [[EBay v. MercExchange (2006, USA)]]
| |
| − | * [[Examples of use for sabotage]]
| |
| − | * [[More than trolls]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==External links== | |
| − | * [http://boycottnovell.com/2008/08/04/patents-trolls-momentum/ Patents Trolls Gaining More Momentum], BoycottNovell.com, August 2008
| |
| − | * [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll Wikipedia's article: Patent troll]
| |
| − | * [http://technologizer.com/2010/01/07/patents-trolls-they-do-exist/ Patent Trolls: They Do Exist], Technologizer, January 2010
| |
| − | * [http://boycottnovell.com/files/trolltracker/20080528154603/ Patent Litigation Run Amok], from Troll Tracker, December 2007
| |
| − | * [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/technology/21patent.html Patent Auctions Offer Protections to Inventors] - an New York Times article ignores the public interest and defends patent trolls as simply being "business minded". Yes, and leeches drink blood because they're "survival minded", but for the host, the parasite is a negative thing.
| |
| − | * [http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220080270152%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20080270152&RS=DN/20080270152 An application to the USPTO for a patent on... patent trolling!]
| |
| − | * [https://www.patentfreedom.com/research.html Ranking of Operating Companies by Number of NPE Lawsuits] - a list of companies most targeted by patent trolls
| |
| − | * [http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2010/05/patent-enforcement-companies-speak-at-sf-conference.html Patent enforcement companies speak at SF conference], May 2010, The Prior Art
| |
| − | * [http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202464087434 Patent Litigation Weekly: Data Shows That Troll Problem Persists], 2 Aug 2010, Law.com
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==References==
| |
| − | {{reflist}}
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | {{footer}}
| |
| − | [[Category:Arguments]]
| |
