It seems we would agree. I think it is very difficult to distinguish what a patent troll is, and while the respective nations do nothing about it, they should be free to go about their business.
A solution needs to be found which does not restrict innovation but rewards all parties where appropriate.
I would agree its a subject where there is a great big grey area. But in cases where a company exists, seemingly with the sole purpose of sitting on a patent it thinks others would want, isn't really what the patent system is designed for. Its a legal loophole in the system, but that doesn't make it right.
I suppose an equivalent is the cybersquatting of domain names. Perfectly legal, but morally questionable.
Or ticket reselling at grossly inflated prices, especially when it is done on blatantly obvious large scale, with reputable ticket agencies now effectively having perfectly legal websites for touts to use. Perfectly legal, but morally questionable.
My issue with patent trolls is that they set out to exploit a loophole in a system, and one of two options are possible:
1. Innovation is hampered, and good ideas never see the light of day.
2. The person exploiting the system is financially rewarded for doing so, for doing bugger all.
It would also be interesting to know what particular issues people have with so called internet trolls. Why does it automatically mean discussions with contributions by such entities automatically mean the removal of a discussion. In fact I would imagine such entities are more likely to want to see the discussion continue than some others.
but its not a "loophole" in the system. It IS the system.
kidspud - i will mark this down in my calendar as a very rare day that you and I find something we agree on
"I think there is a fundamental difference between a company protecting legitimate patents, and a patent troll protecting patents which are effectively worthless."
I meant precisely what it says.
Are you able to say where I said anything about "Apple can ignore patents which are effectively worthless." or not?
And you wonder why people can't be bothered to engage with you.
A simple question you clearly choose not to answer directly, I therefore have no wish to go further down the CP double speak rabbit hole with you.
Is innovation hampered? What if a company owned the patents and refused to license them to stay ahead of competition. Trolls' only agenda is to get money.
but its not a "loophole" in the system. It IS the system.
kidspud - i will mark this down in my calendar as a very rare day that you and I find something we agree on
I disagree - the system is designed for people to patent ideas that they, in good faith, have some intention of developing. So that when they develop, say, their innovative cyclone vacuum cleaner other companies can't come along, copy their idea and manufacture other competing vacuum cleaners using the same technology.
It isn't designed to enable anyone to patent some vague vision of a vacuum cleaner with no bag, blatantly with no intention of ever developing any actual product, and then just sit back and wait to see if anyone ever does manage to invent / manufacture anything like that, and profit.
That patent trolls are doing just that, then they are, in my mind playing the system and exploiting that loophole.
And you wonder why people can't be bothered to engage with you.
A simple question you clearly choose not to answer directly, I therefore have no wish to go further down the CP double speak rabbit hole with you.
I did answer it - I'm genuinely have no idea what you find confusing about it.
And no idea what you are waffling on about every time you go on about "double speak".
There is no double speak - its a perfectly clear and reasonable statement.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to let me know where exactly I said anything about Apple being able to ignore patents.
I can understand why you're struggling with that - mainly because I didn't actually say it.
All I am saying is that patent trolls are, well, trolls, and arguably shouldn't be able to do what they do. I don't know why you are being so argumentative about that, as its something I would have thought most people would agree with. Your insistence in making it about Apple, when it really isn't, makes it almost seem as though you have some sort of pathological axe to grind with Apple.
Whether patent trolls should be allowed to do what they do or not was not the issue. The simple fact is they can by law.
Originally Posted by calico_pie
I disagree.
I think there is a fundamental difference between a company protecting legitimate patents, and a patent troll protecting patents which are effectively worthless.
That reads to me that Apple should not have to adhere to these patents and should not be bound by them, however
What you think people say often seems to be completely different to what people actually say.
That statement refutes my assumption of what you were saying, if it is not what you are saying I asked you to clarify, you clearly refused. Until you can clarify that is not what you were saying further dicussion is pretty pointless as usual with you.
Whether patent trolls should be allowed to do what they do or not was not the issue. The simple fact is they can by law.
Its a discussion involving patent trolls.
Are people not allowed to express the opinion that they shouldn't be able to do what they do? If not, why not? Because you say so, because it doesn't fit in with whatever anti Apple sentiment you happen to be peddling that day?
That reads to me that Apple should not have to adhere to these patents and should not be bound by them, however
If you want to put words in my mouth that aren't there, that's not my fault.
I certainly did not say that Apple should (currently, as the law stands) be able to ignore patents.
What I was saying was that, arguably, the loophole should somehow be closed to prevent any company being stung by trolls. The issue does not revolve around, nor is exclusive to, Apple.
That statement refutes my assumption of what you were saying, if it is not what you are saying I asked you to clarify, you clearly refused. Until you can clarify that is not what you were saying further dicussion is pretty pointless as usual with you.
You assumed I was saying that Apple should (as the law currently stands) be able to ignore patents. To clarify (as it obviously isn't already clear), I did not say that, despite your wish to assume that I did.
Clearly however, (as the law currently stands) they cannot.
Perhaps you could clarify your stance on patent trolls - do you see no problem with their actions?
Why is it hampering innovation, the inventors of the technology still get paid.
I think that is covered by:
2. The person exploiting the system is financially rewarded for doing so, for doing bugger all.
And that's largely the whole point - you say "invented", but very possibly they haven't "invented" anything at all. They've just thought of something.
For example, someone could have patented a cyclone, bag free vacuum cleaner, just based on some vague notion that it might be more efficient and worth developing. But have absolutely no idea how to make it work, and no intention of ever even trying.
Thus preventing someone else (let's call them Mr Dyson), who has actually figured out how to manufacture such a product from doing so without first buying out the holder of the original patent.
You or I could presumably patent some device that could do something no-one else has invented yet. But when someone else hits upon an way to actually manufacture that device they wouldn't be able to do so without first paying us £10 billion.
So yes - I would say that that financial barrier could quite easily hamper innovation.
I don't know about you, but I don't think that's how the patent system should be able to work.
What I was saying was that, arguably, the loophole should somehow be closed to prevent any company being stung by trolls. The issue does not revolve around, nor is exclusive to, Apple.
As you point out Apple is in the thread title along with trolls, so lets stick to the thread shall we as you are eager to do above.
You assumed I was saying that Apple should (as the law currently stands) be able to ignore patents. To clarify (as it obviously isn't already clear), I did not say that, despite your wish to assume that I did.
Clearly however, (as the law currently stands) they cannot.
All well and good saying you did not say this or that, I'm asking what you did mean when you said
Originally Posted by calico_pie I disagree.I think there is a fundamental difference between a company protecting legitimate patents, and a patent troll protecting patents which are effectively worthless.
I klnow under the law they cannot as the law stands but your statement above clearly seperates patents under some ideology you have, which you consistently refuse to clarify. of course we all know why.
If you are saying that in an ideal world this is what I would like to see but as it stands Apple should have been found guilty for violating these patents than that's fine. That however was not clear at all, is that what you meant?
2. The person exploiting the system is financially rewarded for doing so, for doing bugger all.
And that's largely the whole point - you say "invented", but very possibly they haven't "invented" anything at all. They've just thought of something.
For example, someone could have patented a cyclone, bag free vacuum cleaner, just based on some vague notion that it might be more efficient and worth developing. But have absolutely no idea how to make it work, and no intention of ever even trying.
Thus preventing someone else (let's call them Mr Dyson), who has actually figured out how to manufacture such a product from doing so without first buying out the holder of the original patent.
You or I could presumably patent some device that could do something no-one else has invented yet. But when someone else hits upon an way to actually manufacture that device they wouldn't be able to do so without first paying us £10 billion.
So yes - I would say that that financial barrier could quite easily hamper innovation.
I don't know about you, but I don't think that's how the patent system should be able to work.
To be fair though Apple (and probably Google and Samsung and HTC) do patent ideas that never end up making it to fruitition this blocking someone else from actively developing it.
... and dont get me started on this concept of patenting gestures, shapes and actions ???!!!
To be fair though Apple (and probably Google and Samsung and HTC) do patent ideas that never end up making it to fruitition this blocking someone else from actively developing it.
... and dont get me started on this concept of patenting gestures, shapes and actions ???!!!
The difference is probably that Apple, Google, Samsung, whoever at least (more than likely) actively look at developing something with those ideas.
Either way, presumably you get the point, or is there any of that post you would disagree with?
As you point out Apple is in the thread title along with trolls, so lets stick to the thread shall we as you are eager to do above.
You're not making much sense to be honest.
You seem to be arguing that because the thread title mentions both "patent trolls" and "Apple", people should refrain from making any point unless it references both "patent trolls" and "Apple"?
Like I say, that makes pretty much no sense.
All well and good saying you did not say this or that, I'm asking what you did mean when you said:
"I disagree.I think there is a fundamental difference between a company protecting legitimate patents, and a patent troll protecting patents which are effectively worthless."
When I said that I meant precisely what I said. I am not sure why you still seem to be confused about what I meant by it. Especially since I have clarified several times exactly what I meant by "worthless". If you want to ignore that, and cling on to some literal definition limited to financial worth, that's up to you.
I klnow under the law they cannot as the law stands but your statement above clearly seperates patents under some ideology you have, which you consistently refuse to clarify. of course we all know why.
If you are saying that in an ideal world this is what I would like to see but as it stands Apple should have been found guilty for violating these patents than that's fine. That however was not clear at all, is that what you meant?
Noting a difference between two scenarios says nothing about what any given company can or cannot currently do with respect to those scenarios. Again, if you want to make further assumptions and put words in people's mouths, that's up to you.
I can only repeat previous answers:
" To clarify (as it obviously isn't already clear), I did not say that, despite your wish to assume that I did.
Clearly however, (as the law currently stands) they cannot."
and
"I certainly did not say that Apple should (currently, as the law stands) be able to ignore patents.
What I was saying was that, arguably, the loophole should somehow be closed to prevent any company being stung by trolls. The issue does not revolve around, nor is exclusive to, Apple."
I already have and you have also replied to it
I must have missed it, what with your fixation about Apple and all.
Anyway we are part way down the rabbit hole already so unless you wish to clarify what you didn't say I shan't be going further.
There is no rabbit hole - simply your inability or unwillingness to get what people are saying, and your insistence in twisting it into something you want to assume they said.
I don't know why you have such difficulty in accepting what I am saying, but choose instead to continually try to make out I am saying something else, and then get your knickers in a twist because I'm not actually saying whatever it is that you would like to think I am saying.
Is innovation hampered? What if a company owned the patents and refused to license them to stay ahead of competition. Trolls' only agenda is to get money.
It can hamper innovation. Some of the fees that the patent holder requests are excessive which puts companies off using them (or improving on them). Larger companies can take the risk and allow a court to access the value.
Becoming pointless so I will just say this and comment no further on this with you.
The post I I have quoted several times starts with you disagreeing with ACU - in which he states patent troll or not that is suing Apple is irrelevant - so if you disagreed and said there is a fundamental difference, what is anyone to infer from that
Anyway you will only post more lengthy and pointless words about what you never said and why discussion with you ends the same way every thread.
By the way there is no 'loophole' in which these entities operate or dodging of the actual law, these patent holders are fully in compliance with the law and are not somehow operating on its fringes as you are alluding to.
Becoming pointless so I will just say this and comment no further on this with you.
The post I I have quoted several times starts with you disagreeing with ACU - in which he states patent troll or not that is suing Apple is irrelevant - so if you disagreed and said there is a fundamental difference, what is anyone to infer from that
Anyway you will only post more lengthy and pointless words about what you never said and why discussion with you ends the same way every thread.
By the way there is no 'loophole' in which these entities operate or dodging of the actual law, these patent holders are fully in compliance with the law and are not somehow operating on its fringes as you are alluding to.
You're like a dog with a bone.
I disagreed that the fact that the company doing the suing is a patent troll is neither here nor there.
Because I think there is a fundamental difference between a company protecting legitimate patents, and a patent troll protecting patents which are effectively worthless.
A legitimate patent holder, IMO, is one who takes the patent out in good faith, with an intention of seeing the idea developed, either by themselves or an interested third party, into a product or service that will be brought to market.
As opposed to one who takes out the patent with no such intention, but rather solely seeks to financial gain whilst doing absolutely no development on the product, either themselves, or with an interested third party.
You can argue the toss over the exact definition of "patent troll", as obviously there is a lot of grey are, but what, actually, is so difficult to understand about that general distinction?
Are you even disagreeing with that?
Obviously the law makes no distinction, but that doesn't mean there is no distinction.
And yes - its a loophole. Loopholes usually are in compliance with the law - that's the whole point of them! If they weren't in compliance with the law they wouldn't be loopholes - they'd simply be illegal.
The actual problem with these discussions is that you get hung up on some literal interpretation of what someone said, which is usually far removed from what someone actually said, and then get more and more hysterical about it as the discussion goes on.
No the problem is you say one thing then spend the whole thread claiming you 'meant' something else.
And no there is no loophole, a loophole infers a way around the law whilst remaining inside it. Any one can hold a patent and do there is nothing related to loopholes here.
Your definition of who should and shouldn't hold patents (which changes per post) applies to any company. In fact most patents held by your definition of 'legitimate' companies do more to stifle innovation that your so definition of patent trolls.
Do you think Apple owning and patenting round corners helps innovation. Do you think recent court actions over things like bounce back help innovation .. really
It can hamper innovation. Some of the fees that the patent holder requests are excessive which puts companies off using them (or improving on them). Larger companies can take the risk and allow a court to access the value.
Possibly but I would contend that such companies are eager to get income from these patents and are far more willing to negotiate on price. More so than some companies who have no intention of sharing their patents to competitors at all and set a ludicrous amount.
No the problem is you say one thing then spend the whole thread claiming you 'meant' something else.
And no there is no loophole, a loophole infers a way around the law whilst remaining inside it. Any one can hold a patent and do there is nothing related to loopholes here.
Your definition of who should and shouldn't hold patents (which changes per post) applies to any company. In fact most patents held by your definition of 'legitimate' companies do more to stifle innovation that your so definition of patent trolls.
Do you think Apple owning and patenting round corners helps innovation. Do you think recent court actions over things like bounce back help innovation .. really
If you haven't followed what I am saying then I don't know why.
I can only ask again - what exactly do you find difficult to understand about the following:
A legitimate patent holder, IMO, is one who takes the patent out in good faith, with an intention of seeing the idea developed, either by themselves or an interested third party, into a product or service that will be brought to market.
As opposed to someone who takes out the patent with no such intention, but rather solely seeks to financial gain whilst doing absolutely no development on the product, either themselves, or with an interested third party.
What of that do you even disagree with? Perhaps if you could ever just say what you disagree with, and explain why you disagree, this wouldn't be so painful.
To anyone who isn't hellbent on being so pedantic, a loophole could reasonably be described as a way of exploiting a system in a way it wasn't designed for. Again, if you want to argue the toss about some exact and literal definition of "loophole" rather than just get what someone means, that's up to you too.
I wouldn't say patenting round corners helps innovation, but nor would I say it hinders innovation unless you are of the view that rounded corners are particularly innovative.
Possibly but I would contend that such companies are eager to get income from these patents and are far more willing to negotiate on price. More so than some companies who have no intention of sharing their patents to competitors at all and set a ludicrous amount.
Of course they are eager to get income. Which is the whole point - any money they get from someone who would genuinely actually invent a tangible product or service based on the patent, is money they don't have to use to actually product the product or service.
There is a big difference between someone not sharing patents used in actual products and services they produce or provide, and withholding a patent that will not otherwise ever result in any product or service seeing the light of day.
This much should be obvious.
If Mr Dyson spent years of his life, nearly lost everything he had, and built literally hundreds of prototypes of his innovative vacuum cleaner could you explain why you think he should have to share his patents?
IMO Mr Dyson would be a far more legitimate patent holder than, say, someone who patented the idea based on vague theory, but had no intention of ever trying to manufacture the thing.
That even now, you still can't appreciate the difference in those two scenarios, is bizarre.
Although as should be obvious to anyone reading, of course you can, but it doesn't fit whatever agenda you have with regards Apple.
Which is another difference between us - I can talk objectively about the subject, in this case "patent trolls", whereas you seem hellbent on limiting the context to "Apple". And in your context "Apple" has to be the bad guy, so you see nothing wrong with "patent trolls".
Possibly but I would contend that such companies are eager to get income from these patents and are far more willing to negotiate on price. More so than some companies who have no intention of sharing their patents to competitors at all and set a ludicrous amount.
In the very case referenced in this court case, the company have been judged to have over valued by $300M, and that is before any appeals.
It's just the way the patents system and laws related to it operate. Can't really argue about the dubious morals of patent trolls as long as what they are doing is (currently) lawful. Having said that, I personally think the whole system needs overhauling. But that in itself won't happen anytime soon.
Comments
I would agree its a subject where there is a great big grey area. But in cases where a company exists, seemingly with the sole purpose of sitting on a patent it thinks others would want, isn't really what the patent system is designed for. Its a legal loophole in the system, but that doesn't make it right.
I suppose an equivalent is the cybersquatting of domain names. Perfectly legal, but morally questionable.
Or ticket reselling at grossly inflated prices, especially when it is done on blatantly obvious large scale, with reputable ticket agencies now effectively having perfectly legal websites for touts to use. Perfectly legal, but morally questionable.
but its not a "loophole" in the system. It IS the system.
kidspud - i will mark this down in my calendar as a very rare day that you and I find something we agree on
And you wonder why people can't be bothered to engage with you.
A simple question you clearly choose not to answer directly, I therefore have no wish to go further down the CP double speak rabbit hole with you.
I disagree - the system is designed for people to patent ideas that they, in good faith, have some intention of developing. So that when they develop, say, their innovative cyclone vacuum cleaner other companies can't come along, copy their idea and manufacture other competing vacuum cleaners using the same technology.
It isn't designed to enable anyone to patent some vague vision of a vacuum cleaner with no bag, blatantly with no intention of ever developing any actual product, and then just sit back and wait to see if anyone ever does manage to invent / manufacture anything like that, and profit.
That patent trolls are doing just that, then they are, in my mind playing the system and exploiting that loophole.
I did answer it - I'm genuinely have no idea what you find confusing about it.
And no idea what you are waffling on about every time you go on about "double speak".
There is no double speak - its a perfectly clear and reasonable statement.
Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to let me know where exactly I said anything about Apple being able to ignore patents.
I can understand why you're struggling with that - mainly because I didn't actually say it.
All I am saying is that patent trolls are, well, trolls, and arguably shouldn't be able to do what they do. I don't know why you are being so argumentative about that, as its something I would have thought most people would agree with. Your insistence in making it about Apple, when it really isn't, makes it almost seem as though you have some sort of pathological axe to grind with Apple.
That reads to me that Apple should not have to adhere to these patents and should not be bound by them, however
That statement refutes my assumption of what you were saying, if it is not what you are saying I asked you to clarify, you clearly refused. Until you can clarify that is not what you were saying further dicussion is pretty pointless as usual with you.
Its a discussion involving patent trolls.
Are people not allowed to express the opinion that they shouldn't be able to do what they do?
If you want to put words in my mouth that aren't there, that's not my fault.
I certainly did not say that Apple should (currently, as the law stands) be able to ignore patents.
What I was saying was that, arguably, the loophole should somehow be closed to prevent any company being stung by trolls. The issue does not revolve around, nor is exclusive to, Apple.
You assumed I was saying that Apple should (as the law currently stands) be able to ignore patents. To clarify (as it obviously isn't already clear), I did not say that, despite your wish to assume that I did.
Clearly however, (as the law currently stands) they cannot.
Perhaps you could clarify your stance on patent trolls - do you see no problem with their actions?
Why is it hampering innovation, the inventors of the technology still get paid.
I think that is covered by:
2. The person exploiting the system is financially rewarded for doing so, for doing bugger all.
And that's largely the whole point - you say "invented", but very possibly they haven't "invented" anything at all. They've just thought of something.
For example, someone could have patented a cyclone, bag free vacuum cleaner, just based on some vague notion that it might be more efficient and worth developing. But have absolutely no idea how to make it work, and no intention of ever even trying.
Thus preventing someone else (let's call them Mr Dyson), who has actually figured out how to manufacture such a product from doing so without first buying out the holder of the original patent.
You or I could presumably patent some device that could do something no-one else has invented yet. But when someone else hits upon an way to actually manufacture that device they wouldn't be able to do so without first paying us £10 billion.
So yes - I would say that that financial barrier could quite easily hamper innovation.
I don't know about you, but I don't think that's how the patent system should be able to work.
Yes and Apple
As you point out Apple is in the thread title along with trolls, so lets stick to the thread shall we as you are eager to do above.
All well and good saying you did not say this or that, I'm asking what you did mean when you said
I klnow under the law they cannot as the law stands but your statement above clearly seperates patents under some ideology you have, which you consistently refuse to clarify. of course we all know why.
If you are saying that in an ideal world this is what I would like to see but as it stands Apple should have been found guilty for violating these patents than that's fine. That however was not clear at all, is that what you meant?
I already have and you have also replied to it
Anyway we are part way down the rabbit hole already so unless you wish to clarify what you didn't say I shan't be going further.
To be fair though Apple (and probably Google and Samsung and HTC) do patent ideas that never end up making it to fruitition this blocking someone else from actively developing it.
... and dont get me started on this concept of patenting gestures, shapes and actions ???!!!
The difference is probably that Apple, Google, Samsung, whoever at least (more than likely) actively look at developing something with those ideas.
Either way, presumably you get the point, or is there any of that post you would disagree with?
You're not making much sense to be honest.
You seem to be arguing that because the thread title mentions both "patent trolls" and "Apple", people should refrain from making any point unless it references both "patent trolls" and "Apple"?
Like I say, that makes pretty much no sense.
When I said that I meant precisely what I said. I am not sure why you still seem to be confused about what I meant by it. Especially since I have clarified several times exactly what I meant by "worthless". If you want to ignore that, and cling on to some literal definition limited to financial worth, that's up to you.
Noting a difference between two scenarios says nothing about what any given company can or cannot currently do with respect to those scenarios. Again, if you want to make further assumptions and put words in people's mouths, that's up to you.
I can only repeat previous answers:
" To clarify (as it obviously isn't already clear), I did not say that, despite your wish to assume that I did.
Clearly however, (as the law currently stands) they cannot."
and
"I certainly did not say that Apple should (currently, as the law stands) be able to ignore patents.
What I was saying was that, arguably, the loophole should somehow be closed to prevent any company being stung by trolls. The issue does not revolve around, nor is exclusive to, Apple."
I must have missed it, what with your fixation about Apple and all.
There is no rabbit hole - simply your inability or unwillingness to get what people are saying, and your insistence in twisting it into something you want to assume they said.
I don't know why you have such difficulty in accepting what I am saying, but choose instead to continually try to make out I am saying something else, and then get your knickers in a twist because I'm not actually saying whatever it is that you would like to think I am saying.
It can hamper innovation. Some of the fees that the patent holder requests are excessive which puts companies off using them (or improving on them). Larger companies can take the risk and allow a court to access the value.
Becoming pointless so I will just say this and comment no further on this with you.
The post I I have quoted several times starts with you disagreeing with ACU - in which he states patent troll or not that is suing Apple is irrelevant - so if you disagreed and said there is a fundamental difference, what is anyone to infer from that
Anyway you will only post more lengthy and pointless words about what you never said and why discussion with you ends the same way every thread.
By the way there is no 'loophole' in which these entities operate or dodging of the actual law, these patent holders are fully in compliance with the law and are not somehow operating on its fringes as you are alluding to.
You're like a dog with a bone.
I disagreed that the fact that the company doing the suing is a patent troll is neither here nor there.
Because I think there is a fundamental difference between a company protecting legitimate patents, and a patent troll protecting patents which are effectively worthless.
A legitimate patent holder, IMO, is one who takes the patent out in good faith, with an intention of seeing the idea developed, either by themselves or an interested third party, into a product or service that will be brought to market.
As opposed to one who takes out the patent with no such intention, but rather solely seeks to financial gain whilst doing absolutely no development on the product, either themselves, or with an interested third party.
You can argue the toss over the exact definition of "patent troll", as obviously there is a lot of grey are, but what, actually, is so difficult to understand about that general distinction?
Are you even disagreeing with that?
Obviously the law makes no distinction, but that doesn't mean there is no distinction.
And yes - its a loophole. Loopholes usually are in compliance with the law - that's the whole point of them! If they weren't in compliance with the law they wouldn't be loopholes - they'd simply be illegal.
The actual problem with these discussions is that you get hung up on some literal interpretation of what someone said, which is usually far removed from what someone actually said, and then get more and more hysterical about it as the discussion goes on.
And no there is no loophole, a loophole infers a way around the law whilst remaining inside it. Any one can hold a patent and do there is nothing related to loopholes here.
Your definition of who should and shouldn't hold patents (which changes per post) applies to any company. In fact most patents held by your definition of 'legitimate' companies do more to stifle innovation that your so definition of patent trolls.
Do you think Apple owning and patenting round corners helps innovation. Do you think recent court actions over things like bounce back help innovation .. really
Possibly but I would contend that such companies are eager to get income from these patents and are far more willing to negotiate on price. More so than some companies who have no intention of sharing their patents to competitors at all and set a ludicrous amount.
If you haven't followed what I am saying then I don't know why.
I can only ask again - what exactly do you find difficult to understand about the following:
A legitimate patent holder, IMO, is one who takes the patent out in good faith, with an intention of seeing the idea developed, either by themselves or an interested third party, into a product or service that will be brought to market.
As opposed to someone who takes out the patent with no such intention, but rather solely seeks to financial gain whilst doing absolutely no development on the product, either themselves, or with an interested third party.
What of that do you even disagree with? Perhaps if you could ever just say what you disagree with, and explain why you disagree, this wouldn't be so painful.
To anyone who isn't hellbent on being so pedantic, a loophole could reasonably be described as a way of exploiting a system in a way it wasn't designed for. Again, if you want to argue the toss about some exact and literal definition of "loophole" rather than just get what someone means, that's up to you too.
I wouldn't say patenting round corners helps innovation, but nor would I say it hinders innovation unless you are of the view that rounded corners are particularly innovative.
Of course they are eager to get income. Which is the whole point - any money they get from someone who would genuinely actually invent a tangible product or service based on the patent, is money they don't have to use to actually product the product or service.
There is a big difference between someone not sharing patents used in actual products and services they produce or provide, and withholding a patent that will not otherwise ever result in any product or service seeing the light of day.
This much should be obvious.
If Mr Dyson spent years of his life, nearly lost everything he had, and built literally hundreds of prototypes of his innovative vacuum cleaner could you explain why you think he should have to share his patents?
IMO Mr Dyson would be a far more legitimate patent holder than, say, someone who patented the idea based on vague theory, but had no intention of ever trying to manufacture the thing.
That even now, you still can't appreciate the difference in those two scenarios, is bizarre.
Although as should be obvious to anyone reading, of course you can, but it doesn't fit whatever agenda you have with regards Apple.
Which is another difference between us - I can talk objectively about the subject, in this case "patent trolls", whereas you seem hellbent on limiting the context to "Apple". And in your context "Apple" has to be the bad guy, so you see nothing wrong with "patent trolls".
In the very case referenced in this court case, the company have been judged to have over valued by $300M, and that is before any appeals.