Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Patent troll is currently a controversial term, susceptible to numerous definitions, none of which are considered satisfactory from the perspective of understanding how patent trolls should be treated in law. Definitions include a party that does one or more of the following:

- Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;

- Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service;

- Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base; or

- Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights.

- Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers

--------- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Trolls#Etymology_and_def...

I think in this case the fifth definition applies?




> - Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers

Isn't this what the case will determine? If that is the situation then nobody really knows if there is infringement until the courts decide. They have also only filed against one company right now.

I don't agree with the action, but I don't think they even remotely qualify as a patent troll.


None of those definitions obviously apply, why bother listing them?

If you stretch the fifth definition to include Apple, then you would brand any company trying to enforce any patent against anybody a patent troll.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: