

Why the Polite Term for “Trolls” is Also a Misnomer - ryansan
http://www.intellectualventures.com/index.php/insights/archives/why-the-polite-term-for-trolls-is-also-a-misnomer

======
noonespecial
_So, if “non-practicing entity” isn’t the right term, what is? I propose
something much simpler: “patent-holder.” That’s all that really matters, and
puts the focus where it should be – on the patent itself. There isn’t a need
to categorize the holder beyond that._

Yeah. There is. Trolling vs. the intended exercise of this "negative right"? :
"Its the difference between using a feather and using a chicken." We know it
when we see it.

------
ruytlm
I highly doubt the founders intended questionable patents to be used by idle
patent holders to extort licencing agreements from third parties who are
actually building something.

I expect if given the choice, they'd be intelligent enough to choose the side
of progress, rather than of hindrance.

------
Yaa101
We can call a lot of these NPE's "extortionists" because that is what they do.

I suggest that only the inventor has the right not to work out their invention
but any buyer of the patent afterwards should be forced to build that
invention.

------
pyalot2
I agree that the term NPE is a misnomer. I disagree that there's no difference
between patent holders.

No single behavior makes a patent holder a troll, but a combination of
behaviors do.

Good: A patent holder partners with licensees to produce their invention. Bad:
A patent holder waits until somebody produces their invention to sue them.

Good: A patent holder tries to get their invention produced. Bad: A patent
holder takes no steps to get their invention produced.

Good: A patent holder sues for infringement that does not discourage going to
court. Bad: A patent holder threatens to sue under conditions that make going
to court pointless.

Good: A patent holder is the inventor. Suspicious: A patent holder bought the
patent from the inventor.

Good: A patent holder takes the necessary steps to make their patent known.
Bad: A patent holder exploits the system to hide their patent as much as
possible (submarine patents)

Good: A patent represents a suitably complex/worthy invention with a clear and
narrow definition. Bad: A patent is overly broad and claims a trivial
invention.

A good patent/patent holder will never fulfill all bad criteria listed above.
However a patent troll will always fill all the bad criteria for obvious
reasons.

