Talk:Patent troll

Not having a specific replacement in mind. But to call patent trolls 'harmful' to manufacturing companies as like to say their suppliers are 'harmful' because they cost the manufacturers money too.

The section just seems totally from a manufacturers perspective, its generally just the pros and con for them. - Si — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.194.158 (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2007‎

Apple claiming to be a victim of patent trolls? Really? If that isn't the pot calling the kettle... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.205.44.26 (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I added Apple suing HTC and some stupid "CleanerBot" vandalized it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patent_troll&type=revision&diff=966184885&oldid=966109946 It's false advertising to say "Anyone can edit" when bots go an screw the edits up. Apple copied swipe down notifications, you don't see Android suing them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.205.44.26 (talk • contribs)

You added a context-free sentence without a source. It was rightly removed. This is not a place to randomly list companies that have filed patent suits. - MrOllie (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Instead of vandalizing, you could have did this and got a link and put the link there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.205.44.26 (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 May 2021 and 31 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Sdca27, Stephen.defibaugh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Someone posted this message on the top of the page: "The examples and perspective in this deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. You may improve this , discuss the issue on the talk page, or create a new, as appropriate. (January 2021)" The truth is, that Patent Trolls are pretty much unique to the USA, due to certain percularities of the US legal system. I provided one reason in the Intro:

Patent trolling has been less of a problem in Europe than in the United States because Europe has a loser pays costs regime. In contrast, the U.S. generally employs the American rule, under which each party is responsible for paying its own attorney's fees. However, after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. on April 29, 2014, it is now easier for courts to award costs for frivolous patent lawsuits.

Walter Tau (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased, and should be removed or rewritten. To say that entities that attempt to enforce patent rights are "trolls" is just a vindictive insult. It is offensive and has no place on this platform, other than to explain the usage of that offensive term. In fact, as far as I can tell, the term "patent troll" was invented by large, multi-national companies (such as Intel) that were tired of being challenged in court for stealing other people's intellectual property. Saying "attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art" is purely subjective, and in fact is meaningless unless ruled as such by a court of law. Other expressions, such as "frivolous litigation", "vexatious litigation", "chilling effects", etc., are also purely subjective, and have no place in a supposedly objective article.

Also, "their aggressive tactics achieve outcomes contrary to the origins of the patent system, as a legislated social contract to foster and protect innovation; the rapid rise of the modern information economy has put the global intellectual property system under more strain" is purely subjective and obviously just the opinion of the author. My opinion, based on my experience in this system, is exactly the opposite. The moves to make it more difficult to defend patents is directly contrary to the Constitutional goal of the system and contrary to the competitiveness of the U.S. in international commerce.

This article also does not explore why NPEs exist. Large companies who wish to use others' intellectual property without having to pay for it have successfully lobbied the US government to make it more difficult to get patents and to defend them. In fact, it can cost a million dollars or more for a small, independent inventor to defend one patent from infringement by one large companies. Plus, PTAB makes it highly likely that, upon suing for infringement, the patent that went through rigorous examination during prosecution will be found invalid. The cost of defending a patent in PTAB can double the cost of suing for infringement.

An independent inventor cannot afford to defend against infringement, because it will cost millions and could very likely cost him his patents. He can't negotiate with the infringers, because they know the patent holder can't afford to go up against them in court. The inventor can try to find contingency attorneys and/or investors, but they will look at the current environment and see the huge risk in defending against even the most clear cases of infringement. The only reasonable path for the independent inventor is to find a non-practicing entity that is willing to take on the case and amortize the risk across many patent portfolios and many infringers.

The problem is that in the U.S. the pendulum has swung too far in favor of infringers and against the benefits of the inventors. The real answer is to make the system more fair to the inventors and allow them to hold infringers responsible for the theft of intellectual property without going broke in the process.

Obviously, this is all my opinion, but clearly shows that this biased article is not objective, nor does it take all sides into account.

I would suggest a new objective article be written under a non-offensive title, such as "Patent Assertion Entity", which presents all points of view. Have "Patent Troll" redirect to that article. Silleekim (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@Silleekim: Everyone is free to add reliably sourced content, presumably including some of what you describe above. Some of the perceived bias follows from the name of the article, patent troll, which a comparative Google Trends search shows is used much more than patent assertion entity; and Wikipedia follows WP:COMMONNAME. "Patent assertion entity", which some might consider a euphemism, is currently a redirect to the present article. —RCraig09 (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

At a minimum, I would suggest that all subjective comments which reflect the author's opinion either be removed or labeled as the author's opinion, or labeled as an opinion with a source for the opinion. Silleekim (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows the reliable sources (See WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR), it doesn't try to undercut their content by labelling things as 'opinions', even if Wikipedia editors happen to disagree. MrOllie (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

And remember WP:WIKIVOICE. —RCraig09 (talk) 00:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)