Another problem is that patents can be to generic and can exist without an actual working implementation.
J.
The lack of implementation is the real, fundamental problem with the patent system today. By allowing patents to be issued without implementations, it allows the patent holder to treat them as generic patents. With no implementation actually defining what they are, it can be argued that practically any implementation of any remotely related technology infringes. This is the defining characteristic of the "patent troll": accumulating unimplemented patents with no intention to implement them, but simple to wait to see what surfaces that's profitable and what unimplemented patents can be argued to be infringed.
But, none of Apple's iPhone patents suffer from this problem, so that's a separate issue from what's under discussion in this thread. Google's proposal is of course ludicrous, hypocritical and self-serving, and it's also going nowhere.
You totally missed my point. I'm saying that while touch input existed for a long time, it was Apple who perfected it and made it reliable and easy to use. As such, they deserve credit for doing so and if they were awarded a patent for it, it's perfectly valid. We're on the same side of this debate.
So Apple didn't invent it or use it in any of their products first but they did make it better so they should get a patent for it? Please tell me you aren't really saying this.
You totally missed my point. I'm saying that while touch input existed for a long time, it was Apple who perfected it and made it reliable and easy to use. As such, they deserve credit for doing so and if they were awarded a patent for it, it's perfectly valid. We're on the same side of this debate.
So Apple didn't invent it or use it in any of their products first but they did make it better so they should get a patent for it? Please tell me you aren't really saying this.
No - I think you will find that freediverx is saying that they are entitled to apply for a patent for their implementation of it, which seems reasonable.
@fredaroony: I can't speak for freediverx but I believe his/her point is that Apple's implementation of multitouch deserves its patent because it was able to useable. Plus, Apple did purchase Fingerworks which had the base patents to build from anyway.
The lack of implementation is the real, fundamental problem with the patent system today. By allowing patents to be issued without implementations, it allows the patent holder to treat them as generic patents. With no implementation actually defining what they are, it can be argued that practically any implementation of any remotely related technology infringes. This is the defining characteristic of the "patent troll": accumulating unimplemented patents with no intention to implement them, but simple to wait to see what surfaces that's profitable and what unimplemented patents can be argued to be infringed.
But, none of Apple's iPhone patents suffer from this problem, so that's a separate issue from what's under discussion in this thread. Google's proposal is of course ludicrous, hypocritical and self-serving, and it's also going nowhere.
Funny thing is, one of the most blatant examples of ripping oft in the mobile phone arena (behind Samsung and their shameless ripping off of Apple) is Apple's shameless ripping off of the Android notification panel.
C'mon. You can do better. What about all those graphical buttons and icons iOS displays? Weren't those shamelessly 'ripped off' from Xerox PARC 30 years ago? OMG what about copy and paste? Android had it first (cuz we ignore Windows Mobile had it firster). Or let's post more picturez and say Apple ripped off the grid of icons from Palm (because Newton was never a phone). If we can show that Apples phone isn't made from 100% original in-house ideas, maybe we can trick the stupider forum readers into thinking that it's a valid argument against Apple's patent rights.
People should have a choice to buy from Apple something Apple designed after much expense and hard work.
People should have the choice to buy something else that does not have Apple IP in it.
The fact that thieves feel they are entitled to Apple's designs is despicable. When they proceed to rip both Apple and Apple investors off they should be struck down by our government as vigorously as possible if true justice were to prevail.
Sadly it appears that some of the lead culprits also are prominent American corporations. Many other self centered Americans, a generation of cyber scum, do not even care that about the damage done to Apple.
That is major evidence in my humble opinion this country is rotten to the core from the top down.
Patent trolls don't exist? You do realize I'm referring to true patent trolls and not companies like Apple, right?
Have you ever heard of Intellectual Ventures? Explain to me how their practices and business model encourage innovation or help promote business. This company and others like them are like leeches on technology and the economy. The patent system is broken because it allows counter-productive behavior like patent trolling, which defeats the original purpose of allowing patents in the first place - to encourage innovation.
The patent system, just like copyrights, is an artificial construct that was created specifically to encourage creativity and innovation by providing the inventor, writer, or composer with a limited time of exclusivity over their creations so they can profit from them. Patent trolls turn this concept on its head - they bring nothing of value to the system.
I'm quite familiar with Intellectual Ventures. They sign agreements with patent holders or buy patents outright en masse or form patent consortiums to exploit to the fullest their property.
All companies exist to make a profit. That is their only real requirement. Not to employ people, not to make society a better place by making huge donations to charities, not to improve the quality of life... none of that. They are doing it right. They make huge profits, it is 100% legal and it is done in a very, very smart way. And you know what is the side benefit to their rampant, disgusting capitalism? People are employed. Huge donations can be made. Quality of life improves. Wow. Think about that.
Of course the patent and copyright systems are constructs... legal constructs. Property rights are still rights and a society that widely recognizes property rights seems to be a rare and diminishing thing. Rights are inherent, which means they cannot be given or taken from you. A legal system helps to enforce the rights you already have. In that way, the individual is as powerful as the biggest companies on Earth.
Too much chaff on this thread to read through, but if you looked at things like FAT from MS, I would have to agree with Google's argument. It is truly a de-facto standard, and more importantly it is necessary for interoperability (due partly to MS's monopoly abuses in the past).
Multi-touch is not a de-facto standard. It might be something bordering on a law of nature, where the flicking motion to scroll should not be allowed, but pinch to zoom is much less so. (Can an ape figure it out within a minute?)
Patent reform is needed, but time limits are a more important first step in software.
Properly issued patents can not be 'to' generic nor should they exist without a working implementation. Read up on the patent process. A patent must already be unique and novel and the best implementation must be presented to the patent office. If something slips through, it can be thrown out in court.
No, we discussed this before. By implementation I mean an actual working physical implementation or the complete blueprint of that (and a full simulation to prove that it works, and how it works).
And by the way it's a fact that a lot of patents are to generic and ambiguous, are they all issued wrongly? And even so, you have to look at the actual reality of the process and not it's idealization.
Too much chaff on this thread to read through, but if you looked at things like FAT from MS, I would have to agree with Google's argument. It is truly a de-facto standard, and more importantly it is necessary for interoperability (due partly to MS's monopoly abuses in the past).
Multi-touch is not a de-facto standard. It might be something bordering on a law of nature, where the flicking motion to scroll should not be allowed, but pinch to zoom is much less so. (Can an ape figure it out within a minute?)
Patent reform is needed, but time limits are a more important first step in software.
Standards are created when businesses volunteer to set those standards. Google intends to force Apple to relinquish their property. That is wrong on every level.
C'mon. You can do better. What about all those graphical buttons and icons iOS displays? Weren't those shamelessly 'ripped off' from Xerox PARC 30 years ago? OMG what about copy and paste? Android had it first (cuz we ignore Windows Mobile had it firster). Or let's post more picturez and say Apple ripped off the grid of icons from Palm (because Newton was never a phone). If we can show that Apples phone isn't made from 100% original in-house ideas, maybe we can trick the stupider forum readers into thinking that it's a valid argument against Apple's patent rights.
Yes, and did Microsoft patent cut and paste on a mobile device? Imagine if that had been the case. Along with use of GPS and an application. Along with rendering a web page on a mobile device. Along with formatting in a music player. Etc., etc. Apple would be f'd had Microsoft went and put a patent on everything everyone else in the mobile industry took for granted.
Imagine if today Kia went and patented a steering wheel, the design of four wheels connected to a automobile body and steered by rack and pinion. That's Apple. The newbie in the smartphone arena (behind Microsoft, Palm, RIM, etc.) comes in and thinks it can patent EVERYTHING about a mobile device. Uh, not so fast there Apple.
There is only so far you can patent something. Imagine if, just imagine, if someone was able to patent just the motion of a toggle switch to turn lights on and off. You would say WTF! But with Apple this kind of blatent abuse of patents is ok because its a mobile device?
While Apple has been granted patents by misinformed morons in the patent office, it is to be seen if they will hold up in court.
I believe Google is saying, in a roundabout way, that the patent system is terribly broken, and is stifling innovation.
For the people saying Google should get out of the business, keep dreaming. If it wasn't for Android, iOS6 wouldn't have new maps, notifications, NFC, larger screen, and a bunch of other things innovated on Android. Competition is good, and since Android is the #1 smartphone platform, Apple clearly has some competing to do.
Another problem is that patents can be to generic and can exist without an actual working implementation.
J.
How do you know Apple doesn't have a working implementation? A working implementation doesn't mean the patent has to be used in a commercial product people can buy. It can be used on a prototype in the lab that isn't ready to be released, yet has still been defined enough to warrant a patent.
I hope Google wins this, because the ramifications are huge.
Imagine cheap medicines because patented medicine can now be copied cheaply and help solve the worlds health issues
Imagine cheap food because bio tech patents can now be copied cheaply and help solve the worlds food supply issues
I am sure the greater good of world health and food supply is a more noble cause than consumer popularism and this move will release all these patents for the better good.
Standards are created when businesses volunteer to set those standards. Google intends to force Apple to relinquish their property. That is wrong on every level.
Bingo. Companies have to make a decision to offer their patents. When they do they lose some rights but gain other advantages. Once they make the decision they can't go back.
What Google is proposing is that if you have a patent on something it should only be moderately successful. If it becomes wildly successful, then you lose your rights and others are allowed to use it.
So from now on, patent holders need to tone down their ideas. Good ideas are acceptable, great ideas aren't.
I hope Google wins this, because the ramifications are huge.
Imagine cheap medicines because patented medicine can now be copied cheaply and help solve the worlds health issues
Imagine cheap food because bio tech patents can now be copied cheaply and help solve the worlds food supply issues
I am sure the greater good of world health and food supply is a more noble cause than consumer popularism and this move will release all these patents for the better good.
Yeah and pigs will fly that week as well.
It won't happen.
Imagine no new medicines because companies will no longer spend billions on R&D if they won't be able to protect their IP or get back the money they invest.
No, we discussed this before. By implementation I mean an actual working physical implementation or the complete blueprint of that (and a full simulation to prove that it works, and how it works).
And by the way it's a fact that a lot of patents are to generic and ambiguous, are they all issued wrongly? And even so, you have to look at the actual reality of the process and not it's idealization.
J.
Simply stating that patents are generic and ambiguous doesn't make it true. A patent that is truly generic and ambiguous would either be rejected by USPTO or by the courts when someone moves to invalidate it.
The problem is that the Android shills here are incapable of understanding the difference between "unlocking a phone" (which would be generic) and "swipe along a pre-determined path with a graphical icon which follows your finger" (which is not).
Yes, and did Microsoft patent cut and paste on a mobile device? Imagine if that had been the case. Along with use of GPS and an application. Along with rendering a web page on a mobile device. Along with formatting in a music player. Etc., etc. Apple would be f'd had Microsoft went and put a patent on everything everyone else in the mobile industry took for granted.
Imagine if today Kia went and patented a steering wheel, the design of four wheels connected to a automobile body and steered by rack and pinion. That's Apple. The newbie in the smartphone arena (behind Microsoft, Palm, RIM, etc.) comes in and thinks it can patent EVERYTHING about a mobile device. Uh, not so fast there Apple.
There is only so far you can patent something. Imagine if, just imagine, if someone was able to patent just the motion of a toggle switch to turn lights on and off. You would say WTF! But with Apple this kind of blatent abuse of patents is ok because its a mobile device?
And, once again, you're confusing ideas with patents. Rendering a web page on a mobile device or using an application are ideas and are, by definition, unpatentable. A specific method for doing those things might be patentable (as long as it's not obvious). So Microsoft could not patent rendering a web page on a mobile device. They could, however, patent a specific implementation of rendering a web page onto a mobile device if their method was not obvious.
Similarly, Apple could not patent 'unlocking a phone'. That's generic. They could (and did) patent a very specific method of doing so.
While Apple has been granted patents by misinformed morons in the patent office, it is to be seen if they will hold up in court.
So far, most of the courts have declined to reject Apple's patents. And, at least in the US, the patents are considered valid until a court or the USPTO rejects them.
Patent trolls don't exist? You do realize I'm referring to true patent trolls and not companies like Apple, right?
Have you ever heard of Intellectual Ventures? Explain to me how their practices and business model encourage innovation or help promote business. This company and others like them are like leeches on technology and the economy. The patent system is broken because it allows counter-productive behavior like patent trolling, which defeats the original purpose of allowing patents in the first place - to encourage innovation.
The patent system, just like copyrights, is an artificial construct that was created specifically to encourage creativity and innovation by providing the inventor, writer, or composer with a limited time of exclusivity over their creations so they can profit from them. Patent trolls turn this concept on its head - they bring nothing of value to the system.
Of course patent trolls don't exist. It's a silly made-up term used by people who don't understand patents OR business.
If I own a patent, I'm free to do whatever I want with it. I can give it away, use it, sell it, or license it. If I choose to sell it to someone, it is then their property to do whatever they want to do with. They can sell it, license it, use it, or do nothing. There is absolutely nothing in the law that requires a patent holder to practice their patent in order to enforce their rights. In fact, the law very specifically does NOT require the patent holder to practice the invention.
What you're calling a patent troll is actually a critical part of the process for allowing an inventor to be compensated for his invention. If the invention is in a field which requires massive infrastructure, a single inventor would probably not be able to get any benefit from his invention unless he could sell it or license it to someone. He could do that directly, but would have very little clout. A patent suit costs millions of dollars and few individuals could afford that, so a larger entity could just steal the invention and the inventor would be left out in the cold. Or maybe the individual inventor is no good at selling or negotiating. With "patent trolls", he can sell his invention to a group that is in a much better position to get reasonable value for it. He gets his money up front and it's up to them to try to negotiate a good enough deal to make money. Without "patent trolls", small inventors would be far less likely to get compensated for their work.
In many regards, intellectual property is no different than physical property. Let's say that my company builds a factory to make widgets, but later decides that we don't want to be in the widget market. We also don't want to be in the real estate market. At that point, our option is to sell the factory or let it sit empty. Now, let's say a real estate investment firm comes along and offers to buy it with the intent to rent it to someone who wants to make widgets. I sell them the property and have no further interest in it. They lease the factory to a widget manufacturer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? Obviously, there's nothing wrong with that.
An IP firm which buys my patent and licenses it (i.e., leases it) to someone who will use it is doing exactly the same thing as the real estate investment company in the above example.
If the real estate investment company has not yet found a renter, you don't have the right to move in and start making widgets. Similarly, "the patent owner isn't using the invention" isn't justification for someone else using it.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn
Another problem is that patents can be to generic and can exist without an actual working implementation.
J.
The lack of implementation is the real, fundamental problem with the patent system today. By allowing patents to be issued without implementations, it allows the patent holder to treat them as generic patents. With no implementation actually defining what they are, it can be argued that practically any implementation of any remotely related technology infringes. This is the defining characteristic of the "patent troll": accumulating unimplemented patents with no intention to implement them, but simple to wait to see what surfaces that's profitable and what unimplemented patents can be argued to be infringed.
But, none of Apple's iPhone patents suffer from this problem, so that's a separate issue from what's under discussion in this thread. Google's proposal is of course ludicrous, hypocritical and self-serving, and it's also going nowhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
You totally missed my point. I'm saying that while touch input existed for a long time, it was Apple who perfected it and made it reliable and easy to use. As such, they deserve credit for doing so and if they were awarded a patent for it, it's perfectly valid. We're on the same side of this debate.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
So Apple didn't invent it or use it in any of their products first but they did make it better so they should get a patent for it? Please tell me you aren't really saying this.
So essentially what Google are saying is "we are just catching up to the original iphone so now that everyone is copying it, it should be a standard".
Hahaha, nice one but no!
I second that completely.
J.
C'mon. You can do better. What about all those graphical buttons and icons iOS displays? Weren't those shamelessly 'ripped off' from Xerox PARC 30 years ago? OMG what about copy and paste? Android had it first (cuz we ignore Windows Mobile had it firster). Or let's post more picturez and say Apple ripped off the grid of icons from Palm (because Newton was never a phone). If we can show that Apples phone isn't made from 100% original in-house ideas, maybe we can trick the stupider forum readers into thinking that it's a valid argument against Apple's patent rights.
People should have a choice to buy from Apple something Apple designed after much expense and hard work.
People should have the choice to buy something else that does not have Apple IP in it.
The fact that thieves feel they are entitled to Apple's designs is despicable. When they proceed to rip both Apple and Apple investors off they should be struck down by our government as vigorously as possible if true justice were to prevail.
Sadly it appears that some of the lead culprits also are prominent American corporations. Many other self centered Americans, a generation of cyber scum, do not even care that about the damage done to Apple.
That is major evidence in my humble opinion this country is rotten to the core from the top down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
Patent trolls don't exist? You do realize I'm referring to true patent trolls and not companies like Apple, right?
Have you ever heard of Intellectual Ventures? Explain to me how their practices and business model encourage innovation or help promote business. This company and others like them are like leeches on technology and the economy. The patent system is broken because it allows counter-productive behavior like patent trolling, which defeats the original purpose of allowing patents in the first place - to encourage innovation.
The patent system, just like copyrights, is an artificial construct that was created specifically to encourage creativity and innovation by providing the inventor, writer, or composer with a limited time of exclusivity over their creations so they can profit from them. Patent trolls turn this concept on its head - they bring nothing of value to the system.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
I'm quite familiar with Intellectual Ventures. They sign agreements with patent holders or buy patents outright en masse or form patent consortiums to exploit to the fullest their property.
All companies exist to make a profit. That is their only real requirement. Not to employ people, not to make society a better place by making huge donations to charities, not to improve the quality of life... none of that. They are doing it right. They make huge profits, it is 100% legal and it is done in a very, very smart way. And you know what is the side benefit to their rampant, disgusting capitalism? People are employed. Huge donations can be made. Quality of life improves. Wow. Think about that.
Of course the patent and copyright systems are constructs... legal constructs. Property rights are still rights and a society that widely recognizes property rights seems to be a rare and diminishing thing. Rights are inherent, which means they cannot be given or taken from you. A legal system helps to enforce the rights you already have. In that way, the individual is as powerful as the biggest companies on Earth.
Multi-touch is not a de-facto standard. It might be something bordering on a law of nature, where the flicking motion to scroll should not be allowed, but pinch to zoom is much less so. (Can an ape figure it out within a minute?)
Patent reform is needed, but time limits are a more important first step in software.
No, we discussed this before. By implementation I mean an actual working physical implementation or the complete blueprint of that (and a full simulation to prove that it works, and how it works).
And by the way it's a fact that a lot of patents are to generic and ambiguous, are they all issued wrongly? And even so, you have to look at the actual reality of the process and not it's idealization.
J.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh
Too much chaff on this thread to read through, but if you looked at things like FAT from MS, I would have to agree with Google's argument. It is truly a de-facto standard, and more importantly it is necessary for interoperability (due partly to MS's monopoly abuses in the past).
Multi-touch is not a de-facto standard. It might be something bordering on a law of nature, where the flicking motion to scroll should not be allowed, but pinch to zoom is much less so. (Can an ape figure it out within a minute?)
Patent reform is needed, but time limits are a more important first step in software.
Standards are created when businesses volunteer to set those standards. Google intends to force Apple to relinquish their property. That is wrong on every level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
C'mon. You can do better. What about all those graphical buttons and icons iOS displays? Weren't those shamelessly 'ripped off' from Xerox PARC 30 years ago? OMG what about copy and paste? Android had it first (cuz we ignore Windows Mobile had it firster). Or let's post more picturez and say Apple ripped off the grid of icons from Palm (because Newton was never a phone). If we can show that Apples phone isn't made from 100% original in-house ideas, maybe we can trick the stupider forum readers into thinking that it's a valid argument against Apple's patent rights.
Yes, and did Microsoft patent cut and paste on a mobile device? Imagine if that had been the case. Along with use of GPS and an application. Along with rendering a web page on a mobile device. Along with formatting in a music player. Etc., etc. Apple would be f'd had Microsoft went and put a patent on everything everyone else in the mobile industry took for granted.
Imagine if today Kia went and patented a steering wheel, the design of four wheels connected to a automobile body and steered by rack and pinion. That's Apple. The newbie in the smartphone arena (behind Microsoft, Palm, RIM, etc.) comes in and thinks it can patent EVERYTHING about a mobile device. Uh, not so fast there Apple.
There is only so far you can patent something. Imagine if, just imagine, if someone was able to patent just the motion of a toggle switch to turn lights on and off. You would say WTF! But with Apple this kind of blatent abuse of patents is ok because its a mobile device?
While Apple has been granted patents by misinformed morons in the patent office, it is to be seen if they will hold up in court.
I believe Google is saying, in a roundabout way, that the patent system is terribly broken, and is stifling innovation.
For the people saying Google should get out of the business, keep dreaming. If it wasn't for Android, iOS6 wouldn't have new maps, notifications, NFC, larger screen, and a bunch of other things innovated on Android. Competition is good, and since Android is the #1 smartphone platform, Apple clearly has some competing to do.
Advantage: Consumer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn
Another problem is that patents can be to generic and can exist without an actual working implementation.
J.
How do you know Apple doesn't have a working implementation? A working implementation doesn't mean the patent has to be used in a commercial product people can buy. It can be used on a prototype in the lab that isn't ready to be released, yet has still been defined enough to warrant a patent.
I hope Google wins this, because the ramifications are huge.
Imagine cheap medicines because patented medicine can now be copied cheaply and help solve the worlds health issues
Imagine cheap food because bio tech patents can now be copied cheaply and help solve the worlds food supply issues
I am sure the greater good of world health and food supply is a more noble cause than consumer popularism and this move will release all these patents for the better good.
Yeah and pigs will fly that week as well.
It won't happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Standards are created when businesses volunteer to set those standards. Google intends to force Apple to relinquish their property. That is wrong on every level.
Bingo. Companies have to make a decision to offer their patents. When they do they lose some rights but gain other advantages. Once they make the decision they can't go back.
What Google is proposing is that if you have a patent on something it should only be moderately successful. If it becomes wildly successful, then you lose your rights and others are allowed to use it.
So from now on, patent holders need to tone down their ideas. Good ideas are acceptable, great ideas aren't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian Huitson
I hope Google wins this, because the ramifications are huge.
Imagine cheap medicines because patented medicine can now be copied cheaply and help solve the worlds health issues
Imagine cheap food because bio tech patents can now be copied cheaply and help solve the worlds food supply issues
I am sure the greater good of world health and food supply is a more noble cause than consumer popularism and this move will release all these patents for the better good.
Yeah and pigs will fly that week as well.
It won't happen.
Imagine no new medicines because companies will no longer spend billions on R&D if they won't be able to protect their IP or get back the money they invest.
Yeah, you've got a great idea there. /S
Simply stating that patents are generic and ambiguous doesn't make it true. A patent that is truly generic and ambiguous would either be rejected by USPTO or by the courts when someone moves to invalidate it.
The problem is that the Android shills here are incapable of understanding the difference between "unlocking a phone" (which would be generic) and "swipe along a pre-determined path with a graphical icon which follows your finger" (which is not).
And, once again, you're confusing ideas with patents. Rendering a web page on a mobile device or using an application are ideas and are, by definition, unpatentable. A specific method for doing those things might be patentable (as long as it's not obvious). So Microsoft could not patent rendering a web page on a mobile device. They could, however, patent a specific implementation of rendering a web page onto a mobile device if their method was not obvious.
Similarly, Apple could not patent 'unlocking a phone'. That's generic. They could (and did) patent a very specific method of doing so.
So far, most of the courts have declined to reject Apple's patents. And, at least in the US, the patents are considered valid until a court or the USPTO rejects them.
Of course patent trolls don't exist. It's a silly made-up term used by people who don't understand patents OR business.
If I own a patent, I'm free to do whatever I want with it. I can give it away, use it, sell it, or license it. If I choose to sell it to someone, it is then their property to do whatever they want to do with. They can sell it, license it, use it, or do nothing. There is absolutely nothing in the law that requires a patent holder to practice their patent in order to enforce their rights. In fact, the law very specifically does NOT require the patent holder to practice the invention.
What you're calling a patent troll is actually a critical part of the process for allowing an inventor to be compensated for his invention. If the invention is in a field which requires massive infrastructure, a single inventor would probably not be able to get any benefit from his invention unless he could sell it or license it to someone. He could do that directly, but would have very little clout. A patent suit costs millions of dollars and few individuals could afford that, so a larger entity could just steal the invention and the inventor would be left out in the cold. Or maybe the individual inventor is no good at selling or negotiating. With "patent trolls", he can sell his invention to a group that is in a much better position to get reasonable value for it. He gets his money up front and it's up to them to try to negotiate a good enough deal to make money. Without "patent trolls", small inventors would be far less likely to get compensated for their work.
In many regards, intellectual property is no different than physical property. Let's say that my company builds a factory to make widgets, but later decides that we don't want to be in the widget market. We also don't want to be in the real estate market. At that point, our option is to sell the factory or let it sit empty. Now, let's say a real estate investment firm comes along and offers to buy it with the intent to rent it to someone who wants to make widgets. I sell them the property and have no further interest in it. They lease the factory to a widget manufacturer. Why shouldn't they be allowed to do that? Obviously, there's nothing wrong with that.
An IP firm which buys my patent and licenses it (i.e., leases it) to someone who will use it is doing exactly the same thing as the real estate investment company in the above example.
If the real estate investment company has not yet found a renter, you don't have the right to move in and start making widgets. Similarly, "the patent owner isn't using the invention" isn't justification for someone else using it.