ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Patent troll"

(External links: * PatentFreedom has interesting statistics on companies: [https://www.patentfreedom.com/research-ml.html Most Litigious], [https://www.patentfreedom.com/research.html Most Pursued)
(Formative factors)
(36 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{navbox}}
+
:''Note: patent trolls get a lot of attention, but [[Patent trolls are not the biggest problem‎|they are not the biggest problem]].''
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]]'''.
+
"'''patent troll'''" is a term for companies that acquire [[patents]] for the purpose of extracting money from product developers.  They thus harm the economy, make business less efficient, make some types of business too expensive for [[small businesses]] and [[clog up the legal system]].
  
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>
+
Although they attract a lot of media attention, [[patent trolls are not the biggest problem]] caused by [[software patents]].
 +
 
 +
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 [covered] 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.
 
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.
Line 10: Line 11:
 
==Who do they harm most?==
 
==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]].
+
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]].
  
 
==Trolling is legal==
 
==Trolling is legal==
  
Indeed, when [[Microsoft]] repeated told the jury that [[I4i v. Microsoft (2009, USA)|i4i]] was a non-practising entity, the judge fined Microsoft for trial misconduct.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/enterpriseapps/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219400044|title=Microsoft Trial Misconduct Cost $40 Million |quote="Throughout the course of trial Microsoft's trial counsel persisted in arguing that it was somehow improper for a non-practicing patent owner to sue for money damages," [Judge] Davis wrote.}}</ref>  Microsoft's lawyers were criticised for trying to get i4i condemned for something other than the accusation at hand.
+
Indeed, when [[Microsoft]] repeatedly told the jury that [[I4i v. Microsoft (2009, USA)|i4i]] was a non-practising entity, the judge fined Microsoft for trial misconduct.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/enterpriseapps/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219400044|title=Microsoft Trial Misconduct Cost $40 Million |quote="Throughout the course of trial Microsoft's trial counsel persisted in arguing that it was somehow improper for a non-practicing patent owner to sue for money damages," [Judge] Davis wrote.}}</ref>  Microsoft's lawyers were criticised for trying to get i4i condemned for something other than the accusation at hand.
  
 
==Why a "practising" requirement wouldn't suffice==
 
==Why a "practising" requirement wouldn't suffice==
Line 26: Line 29:
 
==How to protect only the big companies against trolls==
 
==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:
+
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 it.  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 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]]
+
* 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
 
* Reducing the damages that patent holders can expect
 
* Making particularly low damage for cases where the patent holder is a non-practising entity
 
* Making particularly low damage for cases where the patent holder is a non-practising entity
Line 37: Line 40:
 
==Activity levels==
 
==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.
+
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.  Kyle Jensen puts the number at just below 20% (500 of the 2,600 suits filed in 2009).<ref>http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/10/guest-post-counting-defendants-in-patent-litigation.html</ref>  Neither of these focus on software patents - it would be interesting to see how much higher the percentage is there.
  
 
PatentFreedom found that lawsuits from NPEs has increased from 100 in 1998 to 200 in 2004 and to 500 in 2008.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.patentfreedom.com/research-lot.html|title=Patent Lawsuits Involving NPEs Over Time}}</ref>
 
PatentFreedom found that lawsuits from NPEs has increased from 100 in 1998 to 200 in 2004 and to 500 in 2008.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.patentfreedom.com/research-lot.html|title=Patent Lawsuits Involving NPEs Over Time}}</ref>
Line 43: Line 46:
 
[[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.”''"
 
[[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==
+
==Example trolls and their lawsuits==
Here are some examples of companies that are considered patent trolls:
 
  
 
* [[Acacia Research Corporation]]
 
* [[Acacia Research Corporation]]
 
* [[Blackboard inc.]]
 
* [[Blackboard inc.]]
 +
* [[Digitude Innovations]]
 +
* [[Divine e-commerce patents|Divine]], who bought and enforced [[Webpage and e-commerce patents|e-commerce patents]]
 +
* [[EpicRealm]]<ref>http://www.pubpat.org/epicrealmdynamicwebsites.htm</ref>
 +
* [[Intellect Wireless]] : used a "wireless messaging" patent to sue [[Apple]], [[T-Mobile USA]], [[Virgin Mobile USA]], [[Helio]], [[U.S. Cellular Corp]], [[Motorola]], [[LG Electronics]], [[Sanyo Electric]], [[Samsung Electronics]], and [[HTC]]<ref>http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/30/intellect-wireless-apple-lawsuit/</ref>
 
* [[Intellectual Ventures]]
 
* [[Intellectual Ventures]]
 +
* [[InterDigital]]<ref>http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/federal-circuit-again-supports-usitc-jurisdiction-for-pure-enforcement-npes-court-again-splits-on-claim-construction.html</ref>
 +
* [[Lodsys]]
 +
* [[MacroSalve]]<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/may/18/app-developers-sued-over-patent-claims</ref>
 +
* [[MobileMedia Ideas LLC]]<ref>http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2010/04/mobilemedia-ideas-v-apple.html</ref>
 +
* [[NTP]], which [[NTP v. RIM (2000, USA)|sued RIM]] over the BlackBerry
 +
* [[RecruitMe LLC]], suing multiple dating and on-line personals companies
 +
* [[Soverain Software]]<ref>http://endsoftpatents.org/2014/04/soverain-software/</ref>
 
* [[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]
 
* [[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]]
 
* [[NTP]], which sued RIM<ref>{{cite web|url=http://fosspatents.blogspot.com/2010/08/why-paul-allen-doesnt-want-to-be-troll.html|title=Why Paul Allen doesn't want to be a troll|quote=NTP, the company that received $612 million from the BlackBerry company in 2006, was set up by lawyers. No programmers, no entrepreneurs.}}</ref>
 
 
* [[Webvention LLC]]
 
* [[Webvention LLC]]
  
Line 68: Line 77:
 
==Formative factors==
 
==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.
+
An variation of the problem is when companies do make some degree of attempt to develop products but, when their product fails, conclude that they can instead be more successful at litigating a portion of the profits from those that become more successful at development.
  
 
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.
 
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}}==
 
==Related pages on {{SITENAME}}==
 +
 +
* [[More than trolls]]
 
* [[2009 patent litigation study]] - report from PriceWaterhouseCoopers which discusses non-practising entities
 
* [[2009 patent litigation study]] - report from PriceWaterhouseCoopers which discusses non-practising entities
 
* [[Calculating infringement damages in the USA]] - what's up for grabs
 
* [[Calculating infringement damages in the USA]] - what's up for grabs
 
* [[Litigation]]
 
* [[Litigation]]
 
* [[EBay v. MercExchange (2006, USA)]]
 
* [[EBay v. MercExchange (2006, USA)]]
 +
* [[NTP v. RIM (2000, USA)]]
 
* [[Examples of use for sabotage]]
 
* [[Examples of use for sabotage]]
* [[More than trolls]]
+
* [[When Patents Attack]] - documentary by ''This American Life''
 +
* [[False accusations of patent infringement]]
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
* [http://boycottnovell.com/2008/08/04/patents-trolls-momentum/ Patents Trolls Gaining More Momentum], August 2008, '''BoycottNovell.com'''
+
 
 +
===General pages (non-dated)===
 +
 
 +
* [https://trollingeffects.org/ Trolling Effects] Database of patent demand letters, by '''[[Electronic Frontier Foundation]]'''
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll Patent troll], '''Wikipedia'''
 
* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll Patent troll], '''Wikipedia'''
 +
* [https://www.patentfreedom.com/research.html Ranking of Operating Companies by Number of NPE Lawsuits] - a list of companies most targeted by patent trolls
 +
* PatentFreedom statistics on companies: [https://www.patentfreedom.com/research-ml.html Most Litigious], [https://www.patentfreedom.com/research.html Most Pursued], [https://www.patentfreedom.com/research-phl.html Most patents held]
 +
 +
===Articles (newest first)===
 +
 +
* [http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/06/23/2147256/personal-audios-james-logan-answers-your-questions Personal Audio's James Logan Answers Your Questions], 23 June 2013, '''Slashdot interview''' with a patent troll
 +
* [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20130519231702268 SIIA Tells the FTC What Patent Trolls Are Doing to the Software Industry], 20 May 2013, '''Groklaw'''
 +
* [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2013/05/patent-troll-panel-at-yale-law-school.html Patent Troll Panel at Yale Law School], 14 May 2013, '''[[Patently-O]]'''
 +
* [http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/05/1621238/why-tech-vendors-fund-patent-trolls Why Tech Vendors Fund Patent Trolls], 5 Apr 2012, '''Slashdot'''
 +
* [http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/scholarship/workingpapers/documents/Bessen-Ford-Meurer-no-11-45rev.pdf The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls], Nov 2011, paper by '''Bessen, Ford, and Meurer'''
 +
* To be reviewed: [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1792442 Patent Troll Myths (paper)], and the [http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2011/09/guest-post-patent-troll-myths.html Patently-O article], and [http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/09/05/2253230/Evaluating-Patent-Troll-Myths Slashdot dicussion]
 +
* [http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/07/26/138576167/when-patents-attack When Patents Attack: Intellectual Ventures and the war over software patents], 22 July 2011, '''NPR Planet Money'''
 +
* [http://271patent.blogspot.com/2010/09/bombshell-study-heavily-litigated-npe.html Bombshell Study: Heavily Litigated NPE Patents Overwhelmingly Lose at Trial], 22 Sep 2010, '''271 Patent Blog''' - of course, individuals and [[SME]]s can't afford to go to court
 +
* [http://www.law.com/jsp/cc/PubArticleCC.jsp?id=1202464087434 Patent Litigation Weekly: Data Shows That Troll Problem Persists], 2 Aug 2010, '''Law.com'''
 +
* [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://technologizer.com/2010/01/07/patents-trolls-they-do-exist/ Patent Trolls: They Do Exist], January 2010, '''Technologizer'''
 
* [http://technologizer.com/2010/01/07/patents-trolls-they-do-exist/ Patent Trolls: They Do Exist], January 2010, '''Technologizer'''
 +
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/21/technology/21patent.html Patent Auctions Offer Protections to Inventors] - 21 Sep 2009, '''New York Times''' defends trolls
 +
* [http://boycottnovell.com/2008/08/04/patents-trolls-momentum/ Patents Trolls Gaining More Momentum], August 2008, '''BoycottNovell.com'''
 +
* [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!], 2008, '''USPTO'''
 
* [http://boycottnovell.com/files/trolltracker/20080528154603/ Patent Litigation Run Amok], December 2007, '''Troll Tracker'''
 
* [http://boycottnovell.com/files/trolltracker/20080528154603/ Patent Litigation Run Amok], December 2007, '''Troll Tracker'''
* [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'''
 
* [http://271patent.blogspot.com/2010/09/bombshell-study-heavily-litigated-npe.html Bombshell Study: Heavily Litigated NPE Patents Overwhelmingly Lose at Trial], 22 Sep 2010, '''271 Patent Blog''' - of course, individuals and [[SME]]s can't afford to go to court
 
* PatentFreedom has interesting statistics on companies: [https://www.patentfreedom.com/research-ml.html Most Litigious], [https://www.patentfreedom.com/research.html Most Pursued], [https://www.patentfreedom.com/research-phl.html Most patents held]
 
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
Line 98: Line 125:
  
 
{{footer}}
 
{{footer}}
[[Category:Arguments]]
+
[[Category: Arguments]]

Revision as of 15:16, 18 February 2015

Note: patent trolls get a lot of attention, but they are not the biggest problem.

"patent troll" is a term for companies that acquire patents for the purpose of extracting money from product developers. They thus harm the economy, make business less efficient, make some types of business too expensive for small businesses and clog up the legal system.

Although they attract a lot of media attention, patent trolls are not the biggest problem caused by software patents.

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 [covered] by the patent".[1]

As evidence that "patent troll" has a broader definition, Microsoft is often called a patent troll,[2] 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.[3]

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.

Trolling is legal

Indeed, when Microsoft repeatedly told the jury that i4i was a non-practising entity, the judge fined Microsoft for trial misconduct.[4] Microsoft's lawyers were criticised for trying to get i4i condemned for something other than the accusation at hand.

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 it. 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 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,[5] patent trolls account for 30% of all patent litigation. Kyle Jensen puts the number at just below 20% (500 of the 2,600 suits filed in 2009).[6] Neither of these focus on software patents - it would be interesting to see how much higher the percentage is there.

PatentFreedom found that lawsuits from NPEs has increased from 100 in 1998 to 200 in 2004 and to 500 in 2008.[7]

Google's Head of Patents and Patent Strategy said in March 2009:[1] "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.”"

Example trolls and their lawsuits

An example of a grey area is Microsoft. They clearly do practise their patents, but are still called a troll by some.[14]

Troll incidents

  • Google Fights Back And Wins Against Bogus Patent Lawsuit From Guy Who Couldn't Even Code His 'Invention' [4][5]

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."

Formative factors

An variation of the problem is when companies do make some degree of attempt to develop products but, when their product fails, conclude that they can instead be more successful at litigating a portion of the profits from those that become more successful at development.

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 ESP Wiki

External links

General pages (non-dated)

Articles (newest first)

References

  1. Definition used by PriceWaterhouseCoopers in their 2009 patent litigation study
  2. "Salesforce.com's Benioff likens Microsoft to patent 'alley thug'". http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/salesforcecoms-benioff-likens-microsoft-to-patent-alley-thug/34846. "The reality is that these patent trolls are unfortunately just part of doing business and technology these days." 
  3. https://www.patentfreedom.com/research.html
  4. "Microsoft Trial Misconduct Cost $40 Million". http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/enterpriseapps/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=219400044. ""Throughout the course of trial Microsoft's trial counsel persisted in arguing that it was somehow improper for a non-practicing patent owner to sue for money damages," [Judge] Davis wrote." 
  5. http://technologizer.com/2010/01/07/patents-trolls-they-do-exist/
  6. http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/10/guest-post-counting-defendants-in-patent-litigation.html
  7. "Patent Lawsuits Involving NPEs Over Time". https://www.patentfreedom.com/research-lot.html. 
  8. http://www.pubpat.org/epicrealmdynamicwebsites.htm
  9. http://techcrunch.com/2010/01/30/intellect-wireless-apple-lawsuit/
  10. http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/08/federal-circuit-again-supports-usitc-jurisdiction-for-pure-enforcement-npes-court-again-splits-on-claim-construction.html
  11. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/may/18/app-developers-sued-over-patent-claims
  12. http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/2010/04/mobilemedia-ideas-v-apple.html
  13. http://endsoftpatents.org/2014/04/soverain-software/
  14. http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/347792/salesforce_com_ceo_says_microsoft_patent_troll_/