decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Any takers? Doubt it! | 158 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Any takers? Doubt it!
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 13 2012 @ 03:29 PM EDT

Not everyone is an abuser, but the trolls have no problem abusing from any angle possible.

On that note, I partially disagree with the Judge Posner's definition of a Patent Troll:

Patent trolls are companies that acquire patents not to protect their market for a product they want to produce -- patent trolls are not producers -- but to lay traps for producers, for a patentee can sue for infringement even if it doesn't make the product that it holds a patent on.
As unfortunate as it is, the definition is much wider then just NPEs.

In my humble opinion it extends out to - and including - those practicing entities who have been granted a patent on something they knew - or should have known - was trivial and are willing to simply ask for licensing fees even if they have no desire to initiate lawsuits. Sadly, the patent stamping authorities are facilitating a very large portion of the trolls by simply granting the patents.

Without patents being granted on something as basic as "rectangular with rounded corners", the only trolls we'd have to face are the ones like SCOG who are making claims they know they can't uphold in a Court Of Law.

Caveat: It has not been proven in a Court Of Law SCOG did such. However, for myself the public record is complete enough there is sufficient proof to show beyond reasonable doubt that they knew - or should have known - Linux did not infringe their copyrights. And most certainly by the time they reached the end of discovery against IBM and had so few - was it 389 lines? - lines of "actual evidence" out of so many - how many 10's of millions of lines of code were examined? - they should be totally red-faced from embarrassment.

RAS

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )