The article is here, and it purports to be a critical empirical study which shows a much smaller percentage of cases come from trolls than has been reported.
The article is here, and it purports to be a critical empirical study which shows a much smaller percentage of cases come from trolls than has been reported.
The Key: Reply to DisQus Email
Suppression Continues; Quality? Be@vis 6 Rules.
I’m not sure I understand, but if it makes you feel better my post about the troll commercial didn’t get posted! (I wrote: “I can’t wait for prices to drop!” What silliness.)
The bottleneck may be machine identifier, Prof. Crouch.
Another 6 word headline (related to the main blog pages):
“Who” is censored – Content Doesn’t Matter
Completely agree Prof. Hricik.
The free alienability of property that is a cornerstone of US Patent Law needs just a little more respect.
I’m with you. I think this is not a good idea — “this” being trying to define a problem in terms of who owns property.
Professor, of the listed groups, which are the trolls? Do they include or exclude failed startups?
If they are excluded, then when a IP holding company or large aggregator asserts patents on behalf of a failed startup, why is it that the failed startup is now a troll?
Comments are closed.