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
Define patent troll | 234 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Only problem: Apple is a PRACTICING entity, so something a bit different is needed....
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 07:41 PM EST
It's definitely! Apple legal head honcho (Bruce Sewell) on a
Kamikaze mission :-)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Define patent troll
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 08:17 PM EST
Just because non-practicing entitys are patent trolls doesn't mean the patent
abusing practicing entitys can't also be patent trolls. A tank is a vehicle,
that doesn't mean a car isn't a vehicle, or that a car is a tank. I think rather
then coming up with a new term for apple we should just expand the current one.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Only problem: Apple is a PRACTICING entity, so something a bit different is needed....
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 09:09 PM EST
Either duck or grouse

Tufty

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Fine
Authored by: BJ on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 10:21 PM EST
Just don't get back to me when your gracious
goodwill towards Apple has expired.
I'll just mock you.


bjd



[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

How about "Patent Grinch"? (n/t)
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 07 2012 @ 10:56 PM EST
N/t

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Not true: Apple is suing over patents it does not use
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 08 2012 @ 03:57 AM EST
Assuming the claims that it's adding stylus stuff to the case
are correct.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I'm a little more generic on the definiiton of "troll"
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 09:35 AM EST

Personally, I've never bought into the definition which says an entity has to be non-practicing to be a troll.

In fabled stories, a troll picks a bridge and sits by it in order to collect a toll.

The troll owned neither the body of water under the bridge, nor the bridge itself, nor the land on either side of the bridge and the troll certainly didn't build the bridge.

So when someone decides to patent something of which knowledge is already in the public domain - whether or not the USPTO is silly enough to grant said patent, they are a patent Troll!

To patent the process of "enter 2+2= into a calculator and read the display to see the result" is nothing less then being a patent Troll.

    The use of a calculator is public knowledge
    To apply math to a calculator is public knowledge
    Math is not patentable and is public knowledge
As a result:
    To apply for a patent on the public knowledge use of a device for the application of a publicly knowledgeable formula
is a Troll - planting your flag to collect a toll on something you don't have a claim over!

And to put bluntly:

    I see the application of software to a computer to be exactly the use of a math formula through a calculator!
Not analogous - exact. The only difference is the magnitude of resource in the hardware of a computer vs a calculator.

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 )