Originally Posted by ktappe
Except patent trolls' business is lawsuits, not actually DOING something. :-(
Once again, the term 'patent troll' is an incredibly stupid term and almost always indicates that the person using it:
a) has never invented anything in their life
b) has no concept of how the patent system works.
It's as if you buy a factory that makes widgets, but you have no desire to make widgets. You sell the company to a real estate investor who plans to lease the company to someone who wants to make widgets (or something else). Is that real estate investor a 'real estate troll'? After all, he didn't build the factory - he just bought it. And since the owner of the factory has no intention to make widgets, why shouldn't someone be able to move into the factory without permission and start making widgets? That would be the equivalent of what people are advocating here.
And in this particular case, it's even more clear cut. The company which sued Apple was the inventor and they have some products that use the technology, so they're not a patent troll even by the usual ridiculous definition.
Originally Posted by Hellacool
Spot on. Many fail to realize that just because someone has a great idea does not mean they have the capitol to realize that idea. And just because someone does not have the capitol for their idea does not give someone the right to just take the idea. It takes time to raise capitol for an individual or a small company.
Here is a great movie regarding this:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1054588/
Exactly. There are a million more examples. If I invent a process that improves the integrated circuit manufacturing process, I certainly don't want to build a fab - even if I had a few billion dollars lying around. Or perhaps I invent an improvement for nuclear reactors. Why should I have to build a reactor to make the patent valid? I have my name on some patents for water purification processes (not products). The products were designed to be used in nuclear plants to purify the ultra pure water in the reactor. Our products were true inventions and some of them were used at one point, although I don't know if they're still in use. Should those patents be invalidated just because I don't own a nuclear plant to exercise the process that the patent describes?
Even in simpler cases, the principle of "you must use the patent for it to be valid" does not make sense. For example. Lets say you're a company which makes products that are used in waste water treatment and you patent the application (process) but not the product (perhaps you're using an existing product in a novel way). Does the fact that you are not a waste generator make the patent invalid?