The term patent troll is used by different people to mean different things. As the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, quoting a law review article by John Golden, recently said, "a widely accepted definition of a patent troll has yet to be devised.” (See Automated Transactions v American Bankers Association.) In that case the court found that a defendant's use of the term wasn't defamation because it represented the expression of an opinion rather than the assertion of a verifiable fact. In other words, you (often enough) can't prove whether it's true or false that a given entity is a patent troll because people mean different things when they use the term.
I generally wouldn't use the term the way it is used in the headline (to mean something like... NPE?). But I think that's an acceptable use of the term as it's consistent with how the term is often used. As the Supreme Court of New Hampshire also said, "[g]enerally speaking, 'patent troll' is a derogatory phrase used to describe 'a class of patent owners who do not provide end products or services themselves, but who do demand royalties as a price for authorizing the work of others.'"
The term patent troll is used by different people to mean different things. As the Supreme Court of New Hampshire, quoting a law review article by John Golden, recently said, "a widely accepted definition of a patent troll has yet to be devised.” (See Automated Transactions v American Bankers Association.) In that case the court found that a defendant's use of the term wasn't defamation because it represented the expression of an opinion rather than the assertion of a verifiable fact. In other words, you (often enough) can't prove whether it's true or false that a given entity is a patent troll because people mean different things when they use the term.
I generally wouldn't use the term the way it is used in the headline (to mean something like... NPE?). But I think that's an acceptable use of the term as it's consistent with how the term is often used. As the Supreme Court of New Hampshire also said, "[g]enerally speaking, 'patent troll' is a derogatory phrase used to describe 'a class of patent owners who do not provide end products or services themselves, but who do demand royalties as a price for authorizing the work of others.'"
If a patent holder was called a “patent troll” and they were to sue for defamation, they very well might win. That’s another reason I think it’s an unwise term to use when “non-practicing entity” or “patent holder” is just as descriptive and does not expose the author of the story to legal action.
But what do I know, I’ve only dealt with billion-dollar companies on the fine points of copyright, trademarks and patents.
Referring to its US Patent No 10,133,558, dated November 2018 and known as the '558 Patent, Aftechmobile says Apple is infringing "at least one of the 28 claims" in that patent, by making and selling the Shortcuts app.
...
The application for the '558 patent was filed in 2016. That date, rather than the 2018 grant date, is what would matter if it were a regular (i.e. not a continuation) application.
However, the 2016 patent application was a continuation application claiming priority back to a 2012 application. So it's the 2012 date that matters for the '558 patent.
Why are we talking about "patent troll" in the headline when this insight is much more important?
Also just because Shortcuts and Workflow have existed for year doesn't mean that the alleged patent violation didn't occur more recently. Personally, I expect that Apple will come off scott free (the prior art or "obviousness" arguments are probably very strong), but we don't know enough to state as a fact that Apple didn't violate a patent.
Yawnnnnn... not even the trolls who live under the bridge here in AI care anymore.
I don’t know how these things usually end. However, as long as it is being accepted by a court, a case is a case and to my - albeit limited - knowledge some companies settle out of court even though the case is clear because in the end it’s still cheaper overall.
Obviously, you and I and everyone buying stuff off Apple has a small amount of money factored into the money we leave on the counter to cover these costs.
Scum.
Another point is that almost every tech company is constantly being sued by somebody over IP or patents. We only hear about Apple because Apple has this big target on its back, stapled there by the tech news media, ie. AppleInsider and other Apple oriented tech blogs. Like you say, a couple of years from now we won’t even hear about this particular lawsuit being settled out of court for an “undisclosed” amount with Apple not admitting to any of the allegations. Anybody can sue anybody for anything in this country and some lawyer will take the case. That’s why corporations have a battalion of lawyers on the payroll. Meanwhile it’s troll fodder good for clicks and views.
If the looser had tp pay all costs, both sides, maybe it would slow them down.
Not sure why the article makes a big deal of the dates. The issue date of a patent doesn’t determine priority date, it is the filing date of the application. And even that can be superseded by an earlier priority date. In this case the patent states that it is a continuation of earlier applications going back to 2012.
Knowing someone who had to fight to assert their well-earned patent rights, I don’t think it’s fair to call any person or company a “patent troll” until they’re proven otherwise. Until everything shakes out in court they are simply a party filing a lawsuit.
If you aren't producing a product, you are by definition a patent troll.
Compare and contrast the two patent stories from today, the companies involved, and how we've presented the information. See if you can find any differences between the two companies.
That wouldn’t stand up in court. It’s whether the patent is valid, and it’s being violated that matters, not who owns the patent. I’m not impressed with any definition I’ve seen. When I discuss it with my wife who was a corporate lawyer for decades, as well as a friend who is a patent attorney, they agree that the definitions lack reality when I describe specific situations. They both agree that on the surface, the definitions SEEM right, but upon delving further, they’re not.
None of this has any bearing on the use of the term in a headline. A company with two members that we can't confirm exist, that has no tax filings in its state of origination for four years, and uses a mail aggregator office for a mailing address, we will call a patent troll as we see fit.
If the terminology bothers any given reader, they don't have to read the story.
There is nothing in patent law that requires any of the absurd requirements you noted. If that was the case then Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, and Nikola Tesla were all patent trolls.
Knowing someone who had to fight to assert their well-earned patent rights, I don’t think it’s fair to call any person or company a “patent troll” until they’re proven otherwise. Until everything shakes out in court they are simply a party filing a lawsuit.
If you aren't producing a product, you are by definition a patent troll.
That’s not what the definition states at all. If that was the definition, then Apple would be a patent troll since most of its patents are not used in products it produces.
Moreover, there is no such thing as a “patent troll” under patent law. A patent is enforceable without regard for how it is used.
Knowing someone who had to fight to assert their well-earned patent rights, I don’t think it’s fair to call any person or company a “patent troll” until they’re proven otherwise. Until everything shakes out in court they are simply a party filing a lawsuit.
If you aren't producing a product, you are by definition a patent troll.
That’s not what the definition states at all. If that was the definition, then Apple would be a patent troll since most of its patents are not used in products it produces.
Moreover, there is no such thing as a “patent troll” under patent law. A patent is enforceable without regard for how it is used.
Re-read the whole definition linked. I'll save you the click.
"A company that obtains the rights to one or more patents in order to profit by means of licensing or litigation, rather than by producing its own goods or services."
I've elaborated why we called the filing party a patent troll in a previous comment. And, again, any legal definition is irrelevant to use in a headline.
If this was filed in Texas, Apple just needs to pull all of its retail, labs and offices out of Texas. Apple does not deserve the constant pressure of lawsuits because no one wants to take the time to actually build a product.
It wasn't filed in Texas, as the end of the article states.
Knowing someone who had to fight to assert their well-earned patent rights, I don’t think it’s fair to call any person or company a “patent troll” until they’re proven otherwise. Until everything shakes out in court they are simply a party filing a lawsuit.
If you aren't producing a product, you are by definition a patent troll.
Compare and contrast the two patent stories from today, the companies involved, and how we've presented the information. See if you can find any differences between the two companies.
That wouldn’t stand up in court. It’s whether the patent is valid, and it’s being violated that matters, not who owns the patent. I’m not impressed with any definition I’ve seen. When I discuss it with my wife who was a corporate lawyer for decades, as well as a friend who is a patent attorney, they agree that the definitions lack reality when I describe specific situations. They both agree that on the surface, the definitions SEEM right, but upon delving further, they’re not.
None of this has any bearing on the use of the term in a headline. A company with two members that we can't confirm exist, that has no tax filings in its state of origination for four years, and uses a mail aggregator office for a mailing address, we will call a patent troll as we see fit.
If the terminology bothers any given reader, they don't have to read the story.
You are awfully defensive. I’m talking in the theoretical sense. You’re are talking in the specific sense. I forget his name, but a Supreme Court Justice one said, and I’m not directly quoting, about pornography, because it’s a similar sort of situation that; “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it..”
that’s really very similar as to what we have with patent trolls. Just like pornography, we have a number of definitions which are sort of right, and sort of wrong, but we know when it’s happening
Knowing someone who had to fight to assert their well-earned patent rights, I don’t think it’s fair to call any person or company a “patent troll” until they’re proven otherwise. Until everything shakes out in court they are simply a party filing a lawsuit.
If you aren't producing a product, you are by definition a patent troll.
Wow, Mike. How nice of you to decide that a patent owner, who may have to wait years to get some regulatory approval completely separately from patent issuance, or perhaps having to spend years negotiating to license other patents in order to practice their patent with a piece of hardware in the marketplace, is a patent troll worthy of disdain and disgust.
Re-read the whole definition linked. I'll save you the click.
"A company that obtains the rights to one or more patents in order to profit by means of licensing or litigation, rather than by producing its own goods or services."
I've elaborated why we called the filing party a patent troll in a previous comment. And, again, any legal definition is irrelevant to use in a headline.
We all like "shorthand" definitions.
But "troll" fails to recognize that a patented idea has value whether or not it's ever made into product. That's why patents are licensed and assigned all the time. If a company runs out of funding, and all that's left for the inventor is a patented idea, why the hell should he/she/they not be able to protect their right to profit from the granted limited monopoly the patent provides, or sell those right to someone else who may or may not be able to make a product, but can find a way to license it?
Abuses happen (Texas), but the patent system for the whole world pretty much agrees with the US standards of fair use. And the "loser pays all" people apparently have never had their rights trampled by a major corporation that can simply wait until you have no more money to protect yourself. So if your're not big, you're screwed...is that the world you really want?
Knowing someone who had to fight to assert their well-earned patent rights, I don’t think it’s fair to call any person or company a “patent troll” until they’re proven otherwise. Until everything shakes out in court they are simply a party filing a lawsuit.
If you aren't producing a product, you are by definition a patent troll.
Wow, Mike. How nice of you to decide that a patent owner, who may have to wait years to get some regulatory approval completely separately from patent issuance, or perhaps having to spend years negotiating to license other patents in order to practice their patent with a piece of hardware in the marketplace, is a patent troll worthy of disdain and disgust.
I do not believe you have read all the comments about this particular topic. I'll save you a trip. This company may not even exist legally.
From the previous page: "A company with two members that we can't confirm exist, that has no tax filings in its state of origination for four years, and uses a mail aggregator office for a mailing address, we will call a patent troll as we see fit."
I do not believe you have read all the comments about this particular topic. I'll save you a trip. This company may not even exist legally.
From the previous page: "A company with two members that we can't confirm exist, that has no tax filings in its state of origination for four years, and uses a mail aggregator office for a mailing address, we will call a patent troll as we see fit."
Yeah, I read it.
It means they're inept. It doesn't mean they don't have a claim. You don't need to be a business entity to own and prosecute a patent. Any old inventor can do that. Even on Fiji, with no internet connection. Or whatever.
Comments
I generally wouldn't use the term the way it is used in the headline (to mean something like... NPE?). But I think that's an acceptable use of the term as it's consistent with how the term is often used. As the Supreme Court of New Hampshire also said, "[g]enerally speaking, 'patent troll' is a derogatory phrase used to describe 'a class of patent owners who do not provide end products or services themselves, but who do demand royalties as a price for authorizing the work of others.'"
But what do I know, I’ve only dealt with billion-dollar companies on the fine points of copyright, trademarks and patents.
Also just because Shortcuts and Workflow have existed for year doesn't mean that the alleged patent violation didn't occur more recently. Personally, I expect that Apple will come off scott free (the prior art or "obviousness" arguments are probably very strong), but we don't know enough to state as a fact that Apple didn't violate a patent.
There is nothing in patent law that requires any of the absurd requirements you noted. If that was the case then Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, and Nikola Tesla were all patent trolls.
I've elaborated why we called the filing party a patent troll in a previous comment. And, again, any legal definition is irrelevant to use in a headline.
that’s really very similar as to what we have with patent trolls. Just like pornography, we have a number of definitions which are sort of right, and sort of wrong, but we know when it’s happening
But "troll" fails to recognize that a patented idea has value whether or not it's ever made into product. That's why patents are licensed and assigned all the time. If a company runs out of funding, and all that's left for the inventor is a patented idea, why the hell should he/she/they not be able to protect their right to profit from the granted limited monopoly the patent provides, or sell those right to someone else who may or may not be able to make a product, but can find a way to license it?
Abuses happen (Texas), but the patent system for the whole world pretty much agrees with the US standards of fair use. And the "loser pays all" people apparently have never had their rights trampled by a major corporation that can simply wait until you have no more money to protect yourself. So if your're not big, you're screwed...is that the world you really want?
From the previous page: "A company with two members that we can't confirm exist, that has no tax filings in its state of origination for four years, and uses a mail aggregator office for a mailing address, we will call a patent troll as we see fit."
It means they're inept. It doesn't mean they don't have a claim. You don't need to be a business entity to own and prosecute a patent. Any old inventor can do that. Even on Fiji, with no internet connection. Or whatever.