Accusing others of that which (a poster) does seems to be a common rhetorical tool.
9
Richard, no doubt, but you seem to miss the point. The word troll is cast about to mislead, because in the US, the big boys are able to use the term exclusively against small fry who vex them, while in many cases they too use patents for revenue purposes. I was simply complementing the Europeans for seeing through the smokescreen these folks put up and by identifying the largest European companies as playing in the same sandbox as the people they accuse.
8
Don’t you mean “Old Maxim” – as in this was old in the times of Adam Smith…
7
The idea that a patent should not be used as a revenue platform (like any other piece of property) is pure fantasy.
Engineers and scientists like to think they are doing something magical in receiving a patent as if it serves some patriotic function that is above the ‘bottom line’ mentality of our economy. This is just nonsense.
New Maxim: Property will be exploited.
6
Mea culpa – that I did.
5
anon, I thing you missed the bit about “if we want to entirely lose focus…”
4
Could not disagree with you more Ned – see the 1908 Supreme Court Case why.
PLus – you risk complete damage to a system LARGELY built on incremental innovation.
A bad – very very very bad idea all the way around.
3
Of course, if we want to entirely lose focus on why we have a patent system at all, we should limit the enforceability of patents to situations where the patent owner or a licensee paying running royalties has a product covered by the patent – not unlike the ITC where part of the proof of a domestic industry one has to show a product sold in the United States that is covered by the patent.
2
Gotta love those Europeans who look pass the flimflam into the substance – a large entity that uses is patent portfolio not (only) to protect its business of selling products and services but also to gain revenue from the patents themselves is by definition a troll to the extent that term means that the patents are being used to gain revenue as opposed to protecting a business of making and selling products and services.
Some of us have pointed out there are historically numbers of American companies who have used their patent portfolios as revenue platforms rather than to simply protect their businesses. Some of these businesses are very well known to us; and some of them have even recently had their top IP people appointed the very high offices in the current administration where they have wielded policy powers. But somehow these folks in the United States are not called trolls; and they are able to focus policy and legislation such that the spotlight does not shine on them.
Gotta love those Europeans.
1
“Games” is about right.
If you cannot attack the rights of the patents themselves, then attack the notion of (still?) legally enforcing those rights.
Accusing others of that which (a poster) does seems to be a common rhetorical tool.
Richard, no doubt, but you seem to miss the point. The word troll is cast about to mislead, because in the US, the big boys are able to use the term exclusively against small fry who vex them, while in many cases they too use patents for revenue purposes. I was simply complementing the Europeans for seeing through the smokescreen these folks put up and by identifying the largest European companies as playing in the same sandbox as the people they accuse.
Don’t you mean “Old Maxim” – as in this was old in the times of Adam Smith…
The idea that a patent should not be used as a revenue platform (like any other piece of property) is pure fantasy.
Engineers and scientists like to think they are doing something magical in receiving a patent as if it serves some patriotic function that is above the ‘bottom line’ mentality of our economy. This is just nonsense.
New Maxim: Property will be exploited.
Mea culpa – that I did.
anon, I thing you missed the bit about “if we want to entirely lose focus…”
Could not disagree with you more Ned – see the 1908 Supreme Court Case why.
PLus – you risk complete damage to a system LARGELY built on incremental innovation.
A bad – very very very bad idea all the way around.
Of course, if we want to entirely lose focus on why we have a patent system at all, we should limit the enforceability of patents to situations where the patent owner or a licensee paying running royalties has a product covered by the patent – not unlike the ITC where part of the proof of a domestic industry one has to show a product sold in the United States that is covered by the patent.
Gotta love those Europeans who look pass the flimflam into the substance – a large entity that uses is patent portfolio not (only) to protect its business of selling products and services but also to gain revenue from the patents themselves is by definition a troll to the extent that term means that the patents are being used to gain revenue as opposed to protecting a business of making and selling products and services.
Some of us have pointed out there are historically numbers of American companies who have used their patent portfolios as revenue platforms rather than to simply protect their businesses. Some of these businesses are very well known to us; and some of them have even recently had their top IP people appointed the very high offices in the current administration where they have wielded policy powers. But somehow these folks in the United States are not called trolls; and they are able to focus policy and legislation such that the spotlight does not shine on them.
Gotta love those Europeans.
“Games” is about right.
If you cannot attack the rights of the patents themselves, then attack the notion of (still?) legally enforcing those rights.
Comments are closed.