So, if “non-practicing entity” isn’t the right term, what is? I propose something much simpler: “patent-holder.” That’s all that really matters, and puts the focus where it should be – on the patent itself. There isn’t a need to categorize the holder beyond that.
Yeah. There is. Trolling vs. the intended exercise of this "negative right"? : "Its the difference between using a feather and using a chicken." We know it when we see it.
I highly doubt the founders intended questionable patents to be used by idle patent holders to extort licencing agreements from third parties who are actually building something.
I expect if given the choice, they'd be intelligent enough to choose the side of progress, rather than of hindrance.
We can call a lot of these NPE's "extortionists" because that is what they do.
I suggest that only the inventor has the right not to work out their invention but any buyer of the patent afterwards should be forced to build that invention.
I agree that the term NPE is a misnomer. I disagree that there's no difference between patent holders.
No single behavior makes a patent holder a troll, but a combination of behaviors do.
Good: A patent holder partners with licensees to produce their invention.
Bad: A patent holder waits until somebody produces their invention to sue them.
Good: A patent holder tries to get their invention produced.
Bad: A patent holder takes no steps to get their invention produced.
Good: A patent holder sues for infringement that does not discourage going to court.
Bad: A patent holder threatens to sue under conditions that make going to court pointless.
Good: A patent holder is the inventor.
Suspicious: A patent holder bought the patent from the inventor.
Good: A patent holder takes the necessary steps to make their patent known.
Bad: A patent holder exploits the system to hide their patent as much as possible (submarine patents)
Good: A patent represents a suitably complex/worthy invention with a clear and narrow definition.
Bad: A patent is overly broad and claims a trivial invention.
A good patent/patent holder will never fulfill all bad criteria listed above. However a patent troll will always fill all the bad criteria for obvious reasons.
Comments
So, if “non-practicing entity” isn’t the right term, what is? I propose something much simpler: “patent-holder.” That’s all that really matters, and puts the focus where it should be – on the patent itself. There isn’t a need to categorize the holder beyond that.
Yeah. There is. Trolling vs. the intended exercise of this "negative right"? : "Its the difference between using a feather and using a chicken." We know it when we see it.
I highly doubt the founders intended questionable patents to be used by idle patent holders to extort licencing agreements from third parties who are actually building something.
I expect if given the choice, they'd be intelligent enough to choose the side of progress, rather than of hindrance.
We can call a lot of these NPE's "extortionists" because that is what they do.
I suggest that only the inventor has the right not to work out their invention but any buyer of the patent afterwards should be forced to build that invention.
I agree that the term NPE is a misnomer. I disagree that there's no difference between patent holders.
No single behavior makes a patent holder a troll, but a combination of behaviors do.
Good: A patent holder partners with licensees to produce their invention. Bad: A patent holder waits until somebody produces their invention to sue them.
Good: A patent holder tries to get their invention produced. Bad: A patent holder takes no steps to get their invention produced.
Good: A patent holder sues for infringement that does not discourage going to court. Bad: A patent holder threatens to sue under conditions that make going to court pointless.
Good: A patent holder is the inventor. Suspicious: A patent holder bought the patent from the inventor.
Good: A patent holder takes the necessary steps to make their patent known. Bad: A patent holder exploits the system to hide their patent as much as possible (submarine patents)
Good: A patent represents a suitably complex/worthy invention with a clear and narrow definition. Bad: A patent is overly broad and claims a trivial invention.
A good patent/patent holder will never fulfill all bad criteria listed above. However a patent troll will always fill all the bad criteria for obvious reasons.