The 'insider' complaining here is -- Oracle?? That would be the Oracle that is No. 58 in the PTO's list of the top 100 most prolific patenters? Who is the troll here?
The question is to what extent they use their patents aggressively, and how good a case they have when they do so. I don't know the answer in Oracle's case (and I'm no great fan of the company) but again, mere numbers of patents won't tell you that.
2. That someone as litigious as Oracle was supporting this should tell you something: that this effort had little to do with "reforming patents" and more to do with "large corporations managing risk".
Apple and Microsoft have managed to turn that line thoroughly into mud by weaponizing patent trolling as a tool to wage proxy wars.
> Unfortunately, people frequently use the word as a derogatory term for "someone who uses patents in a way I don't like" (which often really means "someone who uses patents for their intended purpose, which I don't like on principle"), making it lack any real meaning.
Patent trolling as a practice has quite clear contours: The perpetrator alleges patent infringement and demands a license fee which is less than the cost of proving non-infringement or patent invalidity in court, leaving the victim having to either pay the troll the Danegeld regardless of infringement or pay even more to their own lawyers to prove otherwise.
> That someone as litigious as Oracle was supporting this should tell you something: that this effort had little to do with "reforming patents" and more to do with "large corporations managing risk".
Your explanation is belied by the number of patent nastygrams received by startups that can hardly be described as "large corporations." That we see Oracle on the side of reform next to the likes of Red Hat and the EFF only goes to the severity of the problem.
Which is why I favor calling them patent ogres, not patent trolls. What Apple and Microsoft (most notably among others) are doing is different, but similarly troubling.
1. http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=2a10f894-6812-4... (ctrl-f "commitments")
1. Apple and MS have historically sued competitors with their own patents, which typically they practice themselves.
2. The only conceivable "proxy" may be Rockstar, and they claim to operate independently. If they didn't, well, the DOJ and FTC would be mighty interested [1].
>Patent trolling as a practice has quite clear contours:...
And my point was, Oracle clearly don't fit the bill. Heck, even IV don't fit that bill, because they apparently ask for pretty large licensing fees.
>Your explanation is belied by the number of patent nastygrams received by startups that can hardly be described as "large corporations."
Outside of cherrypicked media reports, there is insufficient empirical evidence that trolls target startups. I've been tracking trolls for a while, and trolls that go after the little guys are actually rare. The moment they do, there's inevitably some media outrage, and the number of unique trolls so far have been few (lodsys, scanner trolls, WiFi trolls... Fotomedia / photo sharing trolls about 7 years back... Any more?) By and large these pick on larger companies, because that's where the big money is.
1. http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=2a10f894-6812-4... (ctrl-f "commitments")
So you can't be a patent troll if you weren't one three years ago?
> 2. The only conceivable "proxy" may be Rockstar, and they claim to operate independently. If they didn't, well, the DOJ and FTC would be mighty interested [1].
In much the same way as a toy soldier can "claim to operate independently" after you release it having wound it up and pointed it in the direction you want it to go.
> Heck, even IV don't fit that bill, because they apparently ask for pretty large licensing fees.
Compared to cost of trial and appeals + impact on customer opinion of company + impact on shareholder confidence + risk of pro-plaintiff East Texas court or pro-plaintiff Federal Circuit judges reaching an incorrect decision and product being taken off the market during further appeals? What are they asking, hundred million dollars + first born child?
> Outside of cherrypicked media reports, there is insufficient empirical evidence that trolls target startups.
Of course there isn't. For a startup fighting is equivalent to bankruptcy and the settlement comes with an NDA. Suppressing all the evidence you can and then claiming there isn't sufficient evidence is not a very strong argument.
Not sure where you got that. I meant if you don't exist for the sole purpose of asserting a patent, you can't be a troll.
> In much the same way as a toy soldier can "claim to operate independently" after you release it having wound it up and pointed it in the direction you want it to go.
1. Actually, Nortel was already hitting firms up for licensing those patents before they went down. It was already "wound up and pointed in the right direction." Everyone knew what was coming. The companies that bought them did so to manage their own risk. They are now simply going after the rest of the industry that failed to do so.
2. Rockstar is now suing giant corporations like Google and Samsung. You think they wouldn't get the FTC and DoJ involved if they could prove anything?
>Compared to cost of trial and appeals ...
Those are the only concrete costs. Everything else is handwavy (public opinion? Really? Impact on stock? The weather has more impact) or highly unlikely (injunctions). The companies IV goes after can certainly afford to take them on.
> pro-plaintiff Federal Circuit judges
I'd encourage you to lay off Timothy Lee's articles about the Federal Circuit and actually look up statistics about their decisions.
> Of course there isn't. For a startup fighting is equivalent to bankruptcy and the settlement comes with an NDA.
1. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it's not proof that evidence is being suppressed either. claiming something is a problem without sufficient evidence is not a very strong evidence either.
2. Evidence always leaks out. All those other trolls no doubt have NDAs, yet we hear of them. If so many startups are getting hit, where were the VCs in this whole thing?
Nonetheless, there's something in the works about making these "nastygrams" more trackable. That will give us enough data to see how much of a problem this really is. Until then all we have is a outrage driven by a media hungry for rageviews and informed by PR.