Talk:Patent troll/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

George Selden

I found a modern reference that looks back on George Selden and characterizes him as a patent troll. I could not find any vintage newspaper articles, however, that described him in derogatory terms.--Nowa 01:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Slows down progress

The following was a recent proposed addition to the article.

Slows down the progress of technology due to patent trolls not allowing companies to develop the patented inventions.

This seems somewhat POV. It would be helpful if the contributor could find an authoritative reference to support the statement. --Nowa 20:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words

I removed the weasel words tag. If an editor feels there are weasel words, then said editor should please remove them or point them out. --Nowa 22:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Article clean-up

I have attempted to get the ball rolling on article clean-up by doing the following: Wikidemo 18:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC) wikidemo

• Put examples in separate article, list of patent trolls. This is a common practice on Wikipedia because lists of examples are more controversial, and less encyclopedic, than articles about the subject. It is probably worth keeping, and it would be contentious to delete these entirely. But the list is far from comprehensive, is unlikely to ever be so, and includes companies whose behavior may or may not be trollish depending on your definition of what a patent troll is, in addition to any disagreements over what the company actually did.
• Put the definition later instead of up front. There has been much dispute in this article about what a patent troll is, which is precisely the point. The term is a neologism and such words have multiple definitions. Instead of trying to choose one, I think it's best to point out that the definition is not fixed and have a section about that. Incidentally, for this reason neologisms are often not suitable for Wikipedia articles at all. If the only point of the article is to point out that there exists a word, that it may be fallacious, and to describe its usage over time, that is a project for the wiktionary, not wikipedia, because wikipedia is about actual things, not words. The notability of this article, if any, is the phenomenon surrounding the concept of patent trolls and/or the underlying corporate behavior that is considered trolling by some.
• Reorganized sections. The article had been organized into a number of arbitrary sections like "perception", etc., that did not cleanly break up the issue into smaller parts. I thought the best notion was use a header, a definition/usage section, a section on the mechanics of patent trolling followed by the mechanics of defnding against patent trolls, then a final section on criticisms of the term (followed by the usual references, etc)
• Reduced redundancy. In part because of the poor organization, the same points were made again and again in different sections. I tried to condense and combine these repeated statements, and use the existing citations to stand for the combined version.
• Eliminated extraneous material. Copyright trolling is not patent trolling so there's no point mentioning it here unless there is a "see also" link to another article. Likewise, discussion of patent law and patent licensing in general is impertinent except as it applies to patent trolling, because there are articles elsewhere about that. For similar reasons the example of eBay's patent defense strategy is unrelated because there was no allegation it had anything to do with patent trolling.

Some major stuff left to do:

• Typos, format, language, etc. The article was already very messy. I'm afraid I might have made that even worse in the course of organizing it better on a large scale.
• Citations. I purposely did not look into the citations in depth or challenge things that were unsupported or ran contrary to what the citations said. To keep everyone on board I wanted to keep this a structural edit, and not a shift in the substance of the article. Of course changes of meaning may have resulted. They always do, but that's not my intent. One unfortunate result of reorganizing an article with bad citations is that the inadequacy of the citations becomes more obvious. Before, some citations were used haphazardly on things they did not support. In some cases a single citation was used both for something that was in the article and something that was not. When I reorganized the sections I would sometimes split paragraphs or sentences across sections, and use the citation that had been in place for both halves. It's likely that now, one of the two halves is completely not present in the cited source. At some point the citations need to be formatted correctly and checked for accuracy, relevance, etc.
• Expand section on mechanics of how (alleged) patent trolling actually works. This article is still too much about patent trolling as an accusation people throw around, and not enough about how aggressive patent enforcement actually works.
• Either limit this article to US law or try to get a more global perspective

The Original Patent Troll

All of the fuss about Patent Trolls is driving coalitions of technology sector leaders to Washington, D.C. with their support of this year’s Patent Reform Legislation. With all the fanfare, it is perfect timing for the Original Patent Troll to make his comeback in the recent re-release of The Patents Video.

In 1994, the Patent Troll made his first appearance in The Patents Video. At its first release, The Patents Video was purchased by hundreds of corporations, universities, governmental entities and law firms. In The Patents Video, an unsuspecting victim is surprised by the Original Patent Troll who strategically positioned himself to collect patent licensing revenue.

Using dramatic vignettes, entertaining scenarios, humor and expert advice, The Patents Video explains the most commonly misunderstood concepts and the most critical information about patents. The Patents Video was designed to visually make key messages memorable. Topics include intellectual property (IP) law basics, domestic and foreign patent bar dates, patenting of ideas, and claim language with respect to patent infringement.

Engineers, scientists, marketers, managers, executives and corporate attorneys have a lesson in Bar Dates that no one forgets when they watch The Patents Video. Og, a caveman in a dream, has invented the wheel. Og and Thak push the wheel through downtown – all in public view. The Patents Video, an entertaining educational tool, explains how and why Og and Thak have lost their foreign patent filing rights and explains, in detail, how to avoid triggering U.S. and foreign patent Bar Dates.

A free viewing of a 3.5 minute clip from the 32 minute video is available by visiting www.ogandthak.com. YouTube viewers give the clip Five Stars.

Og and Thak 08:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Og and Thak, Thanks for your contribution, although I wonder if perhaps the real original patent Troll was John Troll, inventor on the 1972 patent US 3659950  (Just playin with ya, your cite seems to be the first...beware of undue self promotion, however.)--Nowa 20:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I see a reference was added again to the patent troll from "The Patents Video." However, the reference is to the promotional website that sells the video, not to a reliable source that mentions it. So the reference is somewhere between original research and unreliable. I think it's amusing and interesting that a troll was mentioned, and even portrayed, in the video. In fact, I think a fair use screencap or promotional image of the troll would be a nice little illustration for this article. However, it leaves a big question unanswered (pointing to why we need reliable sources). Was the troll portrayed in the video a patent troll as the term is now used and described in this article, or is it merely a way to illustrate that you need to pay someone when you license a patent? In the latter case I think it should still be mentioned as part of the history and etymology of the word, but it's wrong to say that is when the term was coined and that the term was popularized again. The right statement is the term was invented by (or before) this video, but that the current usage was popularized later.

Also, to uphold article quality please use proper citation format for this kind of link, okay? Put it in a reference, then Template:cite web, like all the other references. Thx, Wikidemo 17:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"www.ogandthak.com" - now dead site. YouTube video at [1].

List of Patent Trolls

I missed the discussion on deletion of List of Patent Trolls. Can someone point me to the archived discussion?--Nowa (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Industry Washed

Looking at how some of the material has been changed I feel the balance heavily favors the IP 'industry', I would argue that not only does this article need cleanup, it needs some rebalancing. The term 'pejorativ'e might, by strict definition, mean 'expressing contempt', but it is most commonly synonymous with 'derogatory' (check your dictionary) and is commonly understood as that..It presents the term in as an offensive one, when it shouldn't.

The term 'patent troll' was coined to describe the most parasitic of these firms in the IP 'industry'. We will accept that these 'non-participating entities'.. *chuckles* (I'm sure some industry lawyer came up with that one ), are working within the defined statues of that system, but that their actions show that they are working in direct conflict of the intended purpose and spirit in which the patent system designed. The debate over what term is more 'appropriate' to use does not fall under the definition of the article. Maybe we can move it to a new section called How the patent trolls see themselves". Arthur5005 (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Complaining about the article will do you no good. If you can find reliable sources to back up YOUR point of view, then edit the article. Personally, I think it's pretty good since the article states and the majority of the sources support the view that the term "patent troll" is primarily used as a public relations technique used to tarnish the reputation of any patent holder doing something that the user of the term doesn't like. GDallimore (Talk) 10:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That's true that the article is asymptotically approaching BS. Or what do you think of trolls that file a patent AFTER the invention has hit the market, get it approved, and then sue a manufacturer? --Vuo (talk) 10:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comment shows how problematic the term "troll" is, since that practice has nothing to do with the normally accepted meaning of "trolling". Rather, that's simple fraud (assuming it's done deliberately). GDallimore (Talk) 11:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't "troll" have a precise meaning? A troll is a spoon lure. A patent troll does not invent, but rather files general patents to "troll" for legitimate inventions, which may fall within the scope of the claims. This is not like purchasing legitimate patents, or asserting them. Furthermore, there is no requirement for the troll to be a non-practicing entity. Manufacturers do it too, since they know that filing a patent takes only a few thousand dollars, but striking them down in a court costs their competitor millions of dollars. --Vuo (talk) 12:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In a word, no. What you're describing sounds similar to the approach taken by Jerome Lemelson. While some have called him a troll, it's not a particular common use of the term and his actions are more often spoken of in connection with submarine patents. GDallimore (Talk) 12:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Name Section

I have removed the large personal opinion quote below the suggested non-operating entities section. Wiki is not a sounding board for personal opinion; however, I reworded the section to show that it is a suggested alternative name to patent troll. I also feel the citation is dubious as it is pointing to someone's opinion about coming up with a word definition. That is not a very strong citation at all. It reads more like an opinion and that is not what this is about. This is about showing neutrality and reporting the facts. While the whole article could be construed as opinion regarding the nature of a patent troll, the actual effects of these companies is real and the name has become socially accepted in common language enough to have survived the article authoring process. By injecting a suggested alternative, it attempts to use the notoriety of this commonly accepted word against itself and is therefor not neutral in accordance to the subject matter of the article.--☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 14:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done some reformatting following your edits and removed the dubious tag since I do not think there is anything dubious about the statement itself. However, the prime bit of your edits I've left alone. This issue of conflict between the pejorative name "patent troll" which implies someone acting overly agressively and other names for similar behaviour which is perfectly acceptable in law and morality is an important one that is extremely poorly addressed in the article. That's what needs improving and attempting to discredit a law report as personal opinion does not help in that.

The term "patent troll" only just survived the "article authoring" process and, as the article makes clear, it is a controversial term. The fact that people are trying to refine it is not at all surprising, nor is it undesirable. GDallimore (Talk) 15:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Very well. I do not see the harm in having it there, and since we are going to keep it, I foreshadowed it with some prose that gives a small bit of expository reasoning to make it more concrete. It may even lend credit to raising awareness to the issue by allowing the focus of conversation to stay with the practices of the entities, rather than on the disparity of the pejorative value (or not) of the term. I support your comments and have made the small adjustment accordingly. --☯Lightbound☯ ^talk 20:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-practicing entity

Talk about a buzzkill. Who added this boring-sounding euphemism / section to the article named "Patent Troll"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quenslayer (talk • contribs)

Somebody who doesn't want patent trolls to sound that bad. 217.125.117.197 (talk) 09:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

No matter who added the section. There is a reference, that's what counts, isn't it? --Edcolins (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Not all non practicing entities are patent trolls. For example, not everyone who develops a patent has the ability to manufacture one. The person can then license the patent out. That person is a NPE, but not a troll. They may later develop the ability to manufacture. If you actually did develop the patent that excludes you from being a troll. But if you buy someone else patent, and then go lawsuit happy on everyone the company couldn't afford to sue, or wait for people to infringe, then sue, that makes you a patent troll. A minor troll would be one who buys up every single patent that relates to a certain area of technology in any way, so they can have a stranglehold on a market segment. 99.99.70.93 (talk) 19:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage

I would like to add a section on the recent media coverage of patent trolls, including, but not limited to the "This American Life" program devoted to patent trolls from this past summer. ASlade11 (talk) 04:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. Why don't you put a draft here and we can work on it.--Nowa (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why a separate section is necessary - that just smacks of lazy structuring. Also, we should avoid focusing too much on recent events. More useful would be to see what important information about patent trolls in general can be gleaned from the program and added to existing sections, expanding poorly expressed concepts. And I see no reason not to edit the article straight away, provided you carefully source additions without adding your own editorial bias. It would probably be best to indicate the time-stamp in the cited program.

Some relevant policies/essays: be WP:BOLD, but WP:CITE carefully and avoid excessive WP:RECENTISM. GDallimore (Talk) 00:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Where do the trolls get their patents?

The article isn't very clear about this, but it seems to imply that 'trolls' usually register their own patents. Is this correct? Other things I have read suggest that they usually buy patent rights from the original holder, and then enforce those rights against alleged infringers. There is nothing obviously wrong with this. It is common in many fields of business for legal rights to be assigned to a person or company who specializes in enforcing such rights. Most obviously, this is what debt collection agencies do: they buy up debts at a discount and then pursue the debtors. It often advantageous to the original creditor to sell the debt to an agency, as they then recover part of the debt quickly and without legal costs. Debt collection agencies may not be wildly popular (especially with debtors!) but I don't think anyone suggests they should be banned, provided they stick to legal and ethical methods of enforcement. Equally I don't see any reason to think that the original patent holders should be unable to sell their rights and forced to pursue infringers themselves, with all the cost and uncertainty involved. 109.158.242.4 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The definition of a patent troll is an entity that did not invent or use or market the patented invention, but obtained ownership of the patent, perhaps at a discount or an unfair discount, from a genuine stakeholder in the marketplace of the invention. It's the subsequent abuse of the patent by the troll (threatening infringement lawsuits with inadequate factual basis) that has brought on the controversy, not the bare patent ownership which can increase liquidity of the intellectual property. Not all patent holding companies are trolls: PHCs may be, for example, a licensing division affiliated with a university research lab. The article could make this situation more explicit, but it is implicitly explained to some extent in the "Effects" section. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there is nothing in the definitions of a patent troll agreed in this article which say anything about where the patent came from and the definition definitely doesn't exclude the possiblity of an inventor trolling with his own patents on his own inventions. And this is totally correct in my view. Nor is there a problem with the article being unclear on this since it simply doesn't matter where the patent came from. It's only the (perceived) abuse of a patent that defines a patent troll. Some patent trolls have made themselves trolls by buying up huge numbers of patents before enforcing them, yes, but that's not an important part of the process except where it becomes an easy way of categorising those specific trolls.

And this misunderstanding of what a troll is has led people to mistakenly assume that the basic economic process of simply being able to buy and sell patents (since it's unavoidable that patents themselves have value) is part of the problem. It simply isn't, and the original commenter is probably trying to mount a misguided defence having read some things by critics who simply don't know what they're talking about. GDallimore (Talk) 19:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, that liquidity of transfer of patents as personal property is generally a good thing and is not the problem here. The real problem here seems to be inconsistency in how the different terms Troll, PAE, NPE, PHC etc. are used, even among reliable sources; the terms are not well-defined (see "CHALLENGES OF DEFINING A PATENT TROLL" cited above by AliveFreeHappy). However I think when sources talk about trolls they usually refer to entities who did not invent or work the invention itself, which implies that the "source" of the patents is effectively an element of the most common definition of a troll. — RCraig09 (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Propose name change to Patent Assertion Entity

I'm not going to put up yet another banner, but this recent discussion has brought up what appears to be a better title for this article: Patent assertion entity. The obvious pro for this title is that it's neutral while still being straightforward to understand - it's not a euphemism like non-practicing entity.

The obvious anti for this title is that it's no way near as common as patent troll (45K compared to 700K on the google test). However, there's a reason for that: it's the trolls that get into the news/blogs. But not all patent assertion entities can be called patent trolls. Instead, trolls are just a (common) class of PAE.

Overall, changing this article title to PAE gives the chance to tackle this whole topic more neutrally, and discuss patent trolling as a sub-class of PAEs with their own tactics, goals and effects. GDallimore (Talk) 14:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that PAE is the right title. Although the lead currently equates the two terms, it's not clear that this is an accurate description. There is a pretty good article in Bloomberg Law about it. Challenges of defining a patent troll. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

There has been some recent discussion on nomenclature at Talk:Patent_holding_company, as well as a 2006-2007 discussion in the above section "patent holding company v. patent troll." The Bloomberg article expresses the real problem, that besides troll and PHC, there are numerous other confusingly related names, such as patent assertion entity (PAE), non-practicing entity (NPE), and others. Sadly few of the terms have definitions that are universally agreed on or used with precision, even in reliable references. Though "troll" is disparaging, I still tend to favor retaining it in the title here, since it seems to be the most widely used term and the most likely term for which Wikipedia readers will search. And trolls are the "bad-apple" subset of PHCs, and (as GDallimore notes) probably also of PAEs; the different concepts can be covered in different articles precisely because they are non-identical in meaning. — RCraig09 (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think PAE and patent troll need to be split, with the former focusing on the legal strategy of being a PAE (and how it works in different jurisdictions), and the latter focused on the perceptions on the strategy (especially what constitutes misuse). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

GAO Study

A few things:

1. Citation 24 is possibly a dead link (I keep getting a notice that the website might be discontinued. Not sure what is going on). Here is the direct link to the GAO website. http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/657103.pdf

2. This article would benefit from a more substantial incorporation of the GAO study as it is a nonpartisan evaluation of the current situation. For example, in the "Effects" section the entry quotes the Santa Clara Law School study saying 61% of all patent cases were brought by "patent assertion companies". The GAO report states that they only brought about 20%. While this may be a result of methodology and definitions, I think the disparity in numbers is worth noting. I also think it is worth incorporating statements of the GAO study where they add or contradict other statements in this article.

3. The GAO report also provides additional insight not mentioned in the article such as software-related lawsuits accounted for an 89% of the total increase in defendants in the litigation sample. The report also presents plausible alternative explanations for the effects seen in the patent system which might be good to highlight.

216.2.60.194 (talk) 17:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverted edits by MathewBurkey

I reverted MB's additions because they seemed to be essay-like and strayed a bit from WP:NPOV. Also, a lot of the legal section that was added was more about Innovation_Act_(H.R._3309;_113th_Congress) than patent trolls themselves. Ishdarian 06:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There are in fact two sides to the patent troll question. I am an inventor. I would like to monetize my patents. Patent trolls may be helpful. I added information that explains why Patent Trolls can be helpful. I changed only the sentence in the previous article that patent trolls are rent seekers, which means they have no value. They have some value, as I clearly showed in the comments I added. Otherwise I left every comment in place in what is really a very biased article which assumes that there is only one view, namely that patent trolls are evil.

My comments are supported by my footnotes. If you wish, you may criticize any particular statement I made and I will show in the source where the statement comes from. The footnotes references studies and comments made by IP experts.

The two bills before are critically important because they in effect deal with patent troll boogy man and they hurt small inventors and small business entities. I have several references which oppose these bills, although the bills are apparently being rushed throught the Senate. This is the area in the public sector where patent troll activity will take place for the next few months

The point is that there are two sides to this issue. Wikipedia should have input from both sides. If you continue with your wholesale removal of opposing view points I will ask that you be removed as commentator because you are violating Widipedia policy of being fair and objective.

MathewBurkey

Generally oppose MB's 12.5 kbyte text. Whereas I agree with the general principle of presenting opposing viewpoints, the article did already do that to some extent. Here, MB's text "makes a case" itself rather than citing reliable sources that make the case—which is against the basic Wikipedia policy against WP:SYNTHESIS. Editor commentary should be removed completely, leaving the only the content from sources that are reliable for the respective statements for which they are being cited: this approach is needed here in order to be consistent with WP:NPOV. Also, various mechanical problems also exist in the text, such as • long passages without inline citations (leaving in doubt which reference said what) • at least one reference without a URL link (needed to facilitate verification) • use of "ibid" (which will be confusing if an intervening footnote is added in the future) • it's simply much, much longer than it has to be to concisely make a point directly pertinent to the article. — RCraig09 (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX. More importantly, I don't think the article should be about patent holding companies per se. I understand patent trolling primarily as a fundamentally fraudulent activity, as in the case of fraudsters sending threats based on patent applications, rejected or expired patents, etc. It's not necessarily even relevant whether there is a valid patent or not; the main feature is maliciously extracting money solely by threat of lawsuit, with licensing fees out of proportion of the fair value of the claim. In fact, currently I have some patent business going on, and would be happy to sell the patent to a patent holding company. But, if someone filed a patent AFTER my publication and then came to me to claim fraudulent "license fees", that would be patent trolling. --vuo (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Some cleanup

I moved the "etymology and definition" section closer to the top. I found another cite for who invented the term with its current usage. There appear to be at least two uses of the term prior to that date with slightly different meanings, but it caught on after Intel started using it.

Much data in the article comes from one study by RPX Corporation, which is promoting their scheme for making a market in intellectual property. The RPX raw data is proprietary, as is how they define a legal action as coming from a "patent troll". We need more diverse sources not derived from RPX data.

There's a list available of the top 10 patent trolls (only 9 have initiated more than one lawsuit) but it's a copyrighted image.[2] The EFF has a database with about 15 patent trolls listed. Should there be a list in the article? That was controversial above. I'd suggest listing "patent trolls" behind more than some number of lawsuits. (2? 10?) John Nagle (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Origin of the term patent troll

User:Paula Natasha Chavez added as a reference, a video [3] she produced that uses the term Patent troll in 1994. Although the specific details of the video are not present, I don't think this is a hoax or anything similar. The intended meaning of the term seems roughly comparable to its current usage, and doesn't seem to have any connection with the 'earlier' usage mentioned in the article. This (possibly) contradicts the article's claim that Anne Gundelfinger coined the term in the late 90s. User:Paula Natasha Chavez says on my talk page that she recalls the term being used in the early 90s in Sillicon Valley to describe Jerome H. Lemelson. Seems very plausible. Although it's WP:OR, the video does support the idea that it predates Gundelfinger's claim. Thoughts? Grayfell (talk) 09:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I've amended the wording. The source giving credit to Anne Gundelfinger is not really a definitive source, and neither Detkin not Gundelfinger have any sort of solid proof to their claims. Although the YouTube video is not a great source, it's does at least underscore that it's not a simple issue. Rather than try and investigate who's right, which is likely impossible to determine, it seems best to just mention the claims and move on. Grayfell (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The Patents Video reference on Patent Troll Page

Paula N Chavez, producer of The Patents Video which was released in 1994, does not claim to have "coined" or "invented" the term Patent Troll. Her 1994 video simply depicted a patent troll, anticipating any usage of the term by Anne Gundelfinger or Peter Detkin by many years. The patent troll depicted in the video was with reference to Jerry Lemelson who in the early 1990s was a hot topic of discussion in the Valley amongst patent professionals. Who actually coined or invented the term is currently a mystery. BTW, there are 3 references to prove the 1994 date and they will be added. Paula N. Chavez Paula Natasha Chavez (talk) 00:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't trying to suggest that Chavez claimed to have coined the term. Grayfell (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

To be more clear, continuously deleting The Patents Video from the etymology section of the Patent Troll page is beginning to look highly suspicious.

WHAT INTEREST HAVE YOU IN KEEPING THE PATENTS VIDEO OFF THE PATENT TROLLS PAGE?

As you said above you have amended the Detkin and Gundlefinger reference since you have no actual proof of either of them "coining" the phrase. This goes against everything said on the page in the past. This is a complete reversal of what has been posted before. However, you have absolute proof of The Patents Video depicting a patent troll in 1994. So why would you delete that?

WHY ARE YOU MONITORING THIS PAGE SO VERACIOUSLY?

If you do a Google search on The Patents Video, you will see that it has been cited by the Federal Trade Commission relating to Patent Trolls, and is referenced in many many documents. Deleting it from this page is not promoting the purpose of Wikipedia which is to provide substantiated information to the public.

There is no doubt that the Patents Video has had more impact on the story of the Patent Trolls than either Detkin or Gundelfinger, except that maybe that there is humour in the irony of Mr. Detkin's business were he to have actually coined the phrase which he did not. Detkin and Gundelfinger have no place on the etymology section of this page if The Patents Video is not on it, except to say that they may have both have known about The Patents Video at least since 2007 when I first put reference to it on this page. I formally request you tell the audience why you adamantly delete reference to The Patents Video. Paula N Chavez 05:21, 22 May 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paula Natasha Chavez (talk • contribs) Paula N Chavez Paula Natasha Chavez (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The video is already mentioned. I (re)added it to the end of the paragraph after you raised the issue on my talk page. Please remember to assume good faith. You are the one who is editing with a clear and declared conflict of interest (WP:COI) and is attempting to insert your own name into the article. Wikipedia is based on neutral sources and verifiability. If you would like to discuss the wording of the section, please do so. The format and production credits of the video, which you have acknowledged are not the origin of the term, is largely tangential to the article. I have trimmed down what you've added, but I have rearranged the section to be in chronological order. This way, the video is mentioned before Detkin or Gundelfinger. Is this satisfactory? Grayfell (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The Patents Video depicting the Patent Troll is hardly tangential since the only other reference of an earlier date is 1993 is actually tangential, and as is that of Mr. Detkin and Ms Grudelfinger have been taking credit for this for years, which is plainly false. What I now object to is how you have characterized the depiction of the patent troll in the video, and you have removed the other outstanding references that I had added. You have characterized the patent troll as "also used the term, using fairy-tale imagery of a troll under a bridge, similar to Three Billy Goats Gruff" and even provided a link to Three Billy Goats Gruff. I am not sure of your credentials, but I would guess that they do not include movie critic. My credentials on the other hand are that I have been licensed to practice law in California since 1990, registered to practice before the USPTO since 1991 and am just recently licensed to practice law in Australia. I characterized a patent troll as "the snarly green troll man lurking under the bridge awaiting his unsuspecting victims" which would most likely be how everyone would characterize a troll. Should I have depicted a patent troll as a bald man with glasses in a suit? No, that would be too close to the truth.

I note that Mr. Detkin made reference to Billy Goat Gruff (as you have) in the below cited quote. That you would include the description of the depiction of a patent troll in my video as Billy Goats Gruff alludes to some affiliation which if true would be highly objectionable. Above, you suggest that we assume good faith. Please explain this:

What Is a Patent Troll and When Is an NPE Not a Troll? The term “patent troll” generally is credited to Peter Detkin in 2001, who had been an assistant general counsel of Intel. He is reported to have explained the etymology of “patent troll” by alluding to an old folk­ tale called Billy Goats Gruf . 17 Mr. Detkin is reported to have said that the term means “someone lying under a bridge they didn’t build, demanding payment from any­ body who passed.”18 Wikipedia reports that the “pat­ ent troll” concept was earlier displayed in the humorous “The Patents Video” released in 1994, an excerpt of which is available on YouTube. 19 http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/2013/12/00075-87885.pdf

Even at the FTC, they knew the truth.

I would appreciate it if you would accept my description of the depiction of the patent troll.

In fact, I do not know why you do not state that Detkin and Gundlefinger were wrongly credited with the "coining" of the phrase since it is perfectly clear that they were. Instead you phrase it - "variously attributed." But I have not changed much with regard to anything other than with regard to The Patents Video.

The other issue is how you identify The Patents Video as an education video. While it was yes, education, in 2007 it was accredited for 30 minutes - 1 hour of CLE credit in a dozen states of the United States. The way that you have characterized the depiction of the patent troll makes it look like it was intended for school children. I prefer it referred to as a "humorous video."

Not to bore you with endorsements, here are just two: Happy Customers

"I wanted to let you know that I just viewed your video and it was just a total riot and I really enjoyed it. Its just a tremendously entertaining video. And I thought it was quite useful even for our attorneys to view it." - John Ferrell, Esq., Carr and Ferrell, LLP, Silicon Valley

"Last week I showed The Patents Video to about fifty scientists, research and development engineers and research managers and to twelve business people who were interested in a patent basics review. The Patents Video was a hit with all of those who saw it. A great alternative to a dry lecture by an attorney. Generally the humorous approach was appreciated; the early "Oh no! Not a lawyer" comment may have provided the biggest laugh." - Charles C. Fellows, I.P. Law Department, FMC Corporation

Finally, to the point you made that I have a "clear and declared conflict of interest". In 1994 I spent well over $20,000 producing this video. The issue of the patent troll was not its main message. It is 33 minutes long. I will at some point soon, upload the entire video even though changes in the US laws have made it a little out of date. As I mentioned in my previous email to you, when I saw in 2007 or so that Mr. Detkin was taking credit for coining this term, I felt that the record needed to be set straight. It is not self interest. It is an interest in the truth. While I may have certain opinions about the patent troll trade, I do actually have a dear friend who characterizes himself as a patent troll. It is nothing personal. If the truth cannot be told, what is the point of this discussion? I would prefer my name be listed as Detkin's and Grundlefinger's names were listed. Somehow it has been okay to give them credit when they do not deserve it but not me when I was in the trenches bringing this issue to light. I would not characterize my efforts a clear and declared conflict of interest. It is simply giving credit where credit is due. I will make the changes I think appropriate. I will leave out my name which I feel should be included. If you, in your objective capacity, list my name, then any perceived conflicts will be avoided. Paula N Chavez Paula Natasha Chavez (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not have any conflict of interest here. I do not know Detkin, or Grundlefinger, and I have never received any money for editing any article ever. As for my credentials, if my edits cannot stand on their own merits, they don't belong on Wikipedia, and the same applies to you. Wikipedia is not interested or capable of verifying the credentials of every editor, which is why we rely on verifiability, not original research.

I used the Three Billy Goats Gruff as a link because I thought it would be the easiest way to explain the troll/bridge link. Not everybody who uses Wikipedia is going to be familiar with western folklore, and that link seemed like the easiest way to explain that without going into excessive detail. I'm sure the connection between trolls and bridges is long and significant, but this isn't the place to go into that.

For what it's worth, I agree with you that the Intel people did not coin the term, but it's not that simple.

The reason the Intel people's names are listed is because reliable sources list them. Counter-intuitively, Wikipedia doesn't hold WP:TRUTH as the only standard. Again, it only belongs here if it is independently verifiable.

"Humorous video" is not an acceptable phrasing for an encyclopedia, as that would imply that Wikipedia is making a value judgement. The video may be the funniest thing ever produced, but Wikipedia tries for neutral language. "Comedic video" might be a bit better, but I think that's raising more questions than it's answering, and the article isn't an appropriate place to go into that level of detail. If you can think of a WP:NPOV way to describe the video other than 'educational', I'm open to suggestions. Alternately, if you can find a reliable, WP:SECONDARY source commenting on the video, (not just its existence, but its content) that would be even better. Likewise your characterization of the troll character from the video is not neutrally worded, and isn't really helpful or germane to the subject of terminology.

As for the FTC link that cites Wikipedia... there's a problem with that as a source. It's a bit complicated, but Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for other Wikipedia articles. There's a long, problematic history of this, the articles on "citogenesis" and circular reporting might help explain why, but the use of Wikipedia as a reference in a document undermines its usability as a source. It's basically repeating what the article already says, anyway. He claims to have coined it, but it was in use much earlier. We're not here to draw conclusions that don't exist in sources, we're here to summarize the existing body of work on a subject. If we explain the facts simply, readers can draw their own conclusions.

You say you don't have a conflict of interest, but you would like your name inserted into the article. That doesn't fly. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't edit at all, I'm saying that you should be cautious and understand that there are many pitfalls to editing about yourself. You wrote and financed the video, and are inserting flattering info about it into an article. It's absolutely clear that you have a conflict of interest, and you need to be careful, or you could be banned from editing. Grayfell (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The point is that you have inappropriately characterized the depiction of the patent troll in The Patents Video by stating "using fairy-tale imagery of a troll under a bridge, similar to Three Billy Goats Gruff" and furthermore including providing a link to Billy Goat Gruff. Your description does not provide any actual factual information, and in essence you have provided your own editorial and critical commentary on the video itself. Of course, as you have outline certain standards of Wikipedia, I am sure opinionated or editorial commentary is not allowed either. The depiction of the patent troll in The Patents Video is accurately described as "the snarly green troll man lurking under the bridge awaiting his unsuspecting victims." If you want to further edify your audience, the depiction of the patent troll in The Patents Video alluded to Jerry Lemelson who was in fact mentioned by name in the video. I would appreciate you reinserting the 2 of the three references that you deleted proving the date of the video back into the article. Again, whether or not my name is listed is not the point. On the other hand, I suggest that you delete the reference to Mr. Detkin and Ms. Gundlefinger since neither of them did anything other than take credit where credit was not due. Paula N Chavez Paula Natasha Chavez (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that "snarly green troll man lurking under a bridge" is neutral, encyclopedic language? If you don't like my choice of words, fine, but your proposed replacement should be concisely written in a formal tone.

Again, the link to Three Billy Goats Gruff was intended to clarify a cultural point that is otherwise completely absent from the article, and seems to me to be significant to understanding the subject. I'm open to removing the link, but the article needs at least some explanation of this, otherwise it's going to be very confusing to people who don't know the story.

Lemelson's name is worth considering, but it isn't included in any of the sources.

I have included a source that is, I think, better than the ones I removed. The ones you included were listings that were not ideal for the point the article is making. Nobody anywhere is denying that the videos exist or were made in 1994. The point is that the term Patent Troll is connected to the video, and that is something that needs to be solidly documented. The source mentions both the date, and the Patent Troll character, which is an improvement.

Looking into the history of the article, the mention of the video was removed as part of a massive cleanup of the article a few months ago. That series of edits left only a mentioned the original 1993 use. I do not think their names should be deleted, since good sources have connected them to the term. If we remove the mentions, someone is going to justifiably reinsert them again later. If they are often given credit for the term in sources, then the article should explain that, rather than ignore it. Grayfell (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I am now comfortable with the reference to The Patents Video. I don't really understand what "variously attributed" means with respect to Detkin and Gundelfinger. Since I had posted a reference to The Patents Video in 2007 or 2008 on this page, and since you now tell me that the reference was removed only recently, I am surprised that after that, the reference to Gundelfinger showed up. Maybe we could say, "Anne Gundelfinger and Peter Detkin, both counsel for Intel, popularized the term during the late 1990s." Paula N Chavez Paula Natasha Chavez (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, sources don't really say that they popularized it. They say that they coined it. That turns out to be wrong, but saying that they popularized it might be giving them too much credit, since we don't have any reliable sources supporting that. I'm just guessing, but the reference was probably removed because it's a bit too close to original research (WP:OR). Some editors are more strict in their interpretation of that policy than others. Later someone else came along and re-added Detkin and Gundelfinger. This makes sense, since there are sources supporting that point.

It's possible that the Intels independently arrived at the term (okay, that seems like a stretch, but it's possible). It's also possible that they heard the term, forgot about it, and then subconsciously recalled it when the term "patent extortionist" was deemed too libelous. Or maybe they're just lying. We don't know, and we shouldn't try to guess. Regardless, to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS, I think it's good the way it is. We have a couple of early examples of it's use, and then sourced examples of the Intel folks being given credit for it later. Hopefully we've given the readers enough info to figure it out without making the section too bloated. Grayfell (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

References

International Patent Troll Issues

Greetings: I made a post yesterday about the patent laws in Australia and how they have kept patent trolls at bay. May I ask, who has deleted my post? Paula N. Chavez Paula Natasha Chavez (talk) 08:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You can find out that information on the article's history page, which is usually on a tab at the upper right corner of the screen. I was not the one who removed the info the first time, but I have removed it now for two reasons. First, Wikipedia has a guideline of WP:BRD: be bold, revert, discuss. Simply reinserting the info without discussion can quickly lead to edit warring (WP:EW). The second reason I reverted it, was that you re-added all of the information as a whole, but not all of the information was removed! It was simply moved to different sections. As it stood, there was verbatim redundant information in the article, and that's not appropriate. If you really feel that the info needs to stay, you should undue the edit, but please discuss here, first. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 09:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was wrong about the redundancy issue, I misread the history. The information you restored was not duplicated. I have stricken the comment. Grayfell (talk) 09:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I was right the first time. I need more coffee. The quote about Obama's legacy was repeated. Grayfell (talk) 09:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Half of the original addition was removed because it was original research, specifically a personal WP:SYNTHESIS of the fact that Australia has an "unjustifiable threats" law while the US does not with the conclusion that "laws can affect patent trolls". The rest was not deleted but moved to appropriate sections in the article. As Greyfell has pointed out, please learn to look at edit histories. GDallimore (Talk) 15:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Does the idea that laws have an effect on anything really need support? The rule of law is the overriding principle in a democracy. Do I need to support that? These statements are truisms that go without saying. That your page mainly discusses patent troll activity in the US is myopic. There is an enormous world outside of the US, and information relating to the patent troll activity (or NOT) in the rest of the world is just as important as patent troll activity in the US. Your page does nothing to describe laws in other countries that have actually worked to curb patent troll activity which is just as important as stating the problem in the US. Moving the point I made about Australia's law about "unjustified threats" to the bottom of the page proves my point that this page is myopically directed to only the US patent troll issue and does really nothing to analyse the causes since the causes are law based, and the patent trolls are operating within the legal structure which Obama is setting out to change.

The answer to your first question is in WP:SYN and is yes. GDallimore (Talk) 22:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at some of the sources you provided in more detail has highlighted other problems, but I have managed to solve those by referencing the ORIGINAL source material rather than summary documents of dubious reliability. Any concerns about the article being myopic should be addressed by using sources discussing the situation in other countries, not by generalising and adding your own opinions. But the fact in, the sources say that patent trolling is primarily a US issue so I do not understand your surprise that the focus in this article is on the US.

There used to be more in the article about trolling around the world, but most of it was removed for being inadequately sourced, a problem inflamed by the lack of agreement over what a patent troll actually is. GDallimore (Talk) 23:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi - Read the sources I cite, the patent troll issue is hardly primarily a US issue, it is a global issue. I have two articles about patent trolling from a global perspective. They said that Canada, Europe and Russia have significant patent trolling activity. It is just that this page only refers to the US which I have tried to correct several times now. According my first citation, in 2005, India passed laws to address it, and its activity there is now limited. If it is a primarily a US issue, it is because the laws in the US allow it to occur, i.e. costs of litigation are not awarded to the prevailing party. That in itself would slow down the litigation as show discussed re: Australia. Read what I posted and other articles by the same authors. That is, look at the laws in other countries where activity is limited and that will provide guidance on reducing it in the US. If this page is to educate, it should show where and how this issue has been successfully resolved. The Patent Troll page describes the causes, but does not describe solutions that have occurred. 2 million patent applications were filed worldwide in 2013 -- most of them not in the US. In the US probably 500,000, 25% of the world wide total. There are over 300 other countries in the world other than the US. Why would anyone suppose that patent trolls would limit their activity to the US? Intellectual Ventures has an office in Sydney, Australia. Please do not delete my postings to this talk page. Paula N Chavez Paula Natasha Chavez (talk) 03:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If you're referring to the archive discussion below, I would not delete postings to a talk page. Even if I thought that was a good idea, removing or re-factoring other's talk page comments is generally prohibited. Archiving is simply moving older postings to an archive page, with a link to that page at the top of this one. Please see the link I posted regarding that: H:ARC. It's a common practice on Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You bring in so many irrelevant factors that it's already become tiresome discussing this. Sticking to relevant factors:

• (a) the material I removed from the article that you added was NOT supported by the sources. The main problem was that you were trying to REVERSE cause and effect from what the sources say. The material that WAS properly sources I moved to the relevant section, most obviously the paragraph I moved to the DEFENCE section. Your claim that this is hiding it at the end of the article is frankly laughable and requires no futher response.
• (b) the source that *I* added (you added sources which referred to that original source, but weren't particularly reliable or clear, so I tracked down the original material) do indeed mention that there are relatively minor (except maybe India and Russia) problems in some other countries. But you haven't tried adding any of that information. As I said in my comment above "Any concerns about the article being myopic should be addressed by using sources discussing the situation in other countries, not by generalising and adding your own opinions."

Overall, the only relevant point here is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which I suggest you read before attempting to contribute further. GDallimore (Talk) 13:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi: Maybe a new section is needed. International patent trolling and legal solutions. Legal solutions should not categorize as a defence. That is, what is more relevant than where there are problems in other parts of the world, is where there are not problems and why. India is good example because they changed laws and I will find out what they did exactly. As far as Australia is concerned, the laws about awarding costs to the prevailing party in litigation reduces all litigation, not just patent troll activity. But, it has made Australia an environment not terribly suited to patent troll activity. As I said, that is what is impressive. Apparently Europe sees its fair share as well. To your relief, I'll look at this again when I have time. I am sure the Obama administration has a handle on all of this since they have access to the best legal minds, and will find ways to change the US legal environment. Paula N Chavez Paula Natasha Chavez (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

References

Talk page is too long

This talk page is way too long, does anybody object to me setting up an archive for it (H:ARC)? Most of the discussions here are years old, it has over fifty topics, and it's over 150K so it seems like an obvious candidate. Grayfell (talk) 02:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

No objection. Good idea. Please go ahead. Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 08:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I've manually set up the first 100,000 byte archive and told a bot to keep an eye on it from now on. I haven't done this in a while, but I don't think a messed things up too badly... It should leave behind at least the five latest threads, and only archive older ones (90 days) if there's two or more new ones. Grayfell (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate you doing this, in automated fashion. Could you paste a link here describing how you did it, so I might learn from your initiative? And ping me after replying, thank you kindly. Also, if you remain a regular here, I understand that there is a {{templated}} bit of scripting that automatically queries who a use is when they fail to sign, and when the bots don't catch the entry. If you or anyone can apprise me what that is (I would use it, for instance, here, [4]). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

@Leprof 7272:, as I recall, I did the cut-and-paste procedure from Help:Archiving a talk page for the first page, and then followed User:MiszaBot/Archive HowTo to set up the bot. I set the 'counter' field set to '2' to begin a new page, which was probably unnecessary, now that I think about it. I don't really know what I'm doing, it seems to be working, though.

I don't know if there's such a script for finding unsigned comments, that would be useful. I bet the Wikipedia:Help desk would know. For your example I dug through the comment history and then added Template:Unsigned IP. I'm curious to see if this will facilitate the discussion being archived, since the bots don't archive sections without a time-stamp. Sorry, I didn't think of this until after I had done it, but if it does work, it might make it a little harder to follow what you're saying. The section you linked to is "Benefits & Harm" at the top of this version of the talk page, for future reference. Grayfell (talk) 00:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Bravo, @[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]], thank you, this will get me started. (I will copy your work, to start.) And there is a template for finding source of unsigned comments, I just have to look for the example (given me once long ago by an Admin). Will post here if I find. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help. Grayfell (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Selden Patent, troll or submarine?

George B. Selden's automobile patent took 16 years from application to granting. At the time he began demanding royalties and filing lawsuits, he had only produced a single example of a motor vehicle. Bizzybody (talk) 08:23, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition is Not Precise

The current definition of patent troll is imprecise:

A patent troll ... is a person or company who enforces patent rights ... to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question, thus engaging in economic rent-seeking. Non-practicing entities are generally not considered 'patent trolls' when they offer their patented technologies to licensees in advance ....

By this definition, any company that offers a license before suing would not be a patent troll. However, it's common practice for "patent trolls" to offer a license, and then when that license is rejected, to launch a lawsuit. Also, operating companies that launch huge lawsuits based on very weak patents can often be described as trollish, even if they manufacture real products. The truth is that patent troll does not have a precise definition, but is used pejoratively to describe an entity that asserts a patent that people do not like. I prefer to use Judge Rader's definition, which captures this subtly to a much greater degree. According to him, a patent troll is:

any party that attempts to enforce a patent far beyond its actual value or contribution to the prior art.

Accordingly, I propose we change the first paragraph to the following:

A patent troll is a pejorative term used to describe a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art. Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. However, some entities which do not practice their asserted patent may not be considered "patent trolls" when they license their patented technologies on reasonable terms in advance. Other related terms include patent holding company (PHC), patent assertion entity (PAE), and non-practicing entity (NPE), which may or may not be considered a "patent troll" depending on the position they are taking and the perception of that position by the public.

Speedplane (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I like the new first paragraph you proposed. It brings some clarity to the issue. --Edcolins (talk) 19:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

References

What about a List of alleged patent trolls?

What about creating a List of alleged patent trolls? Each entry needs WP:RS that state that the entity has been called a patent troll or having engaged in patent trolling.

Example:

Entity	Comments	References
Uniloc	The company asserted that its "software activation" patent gives it clearance to sue many for using some form of online authentication for software.

References

--Fixuture (talk) 13:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of patent trolls. --Edcolins (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Patent troll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060518194250/http://www.ipfrontline.com/depts/article.asp?id=10854&deptid=4 to http://www.ipfrontline.com/depts/article.asp?id=10854&deptid=4
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/07/business/ftc-settles-first-case-targeting-patent-troll.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/06/this-egregious-patent-troll-just-got-smacked-by-the-ftc/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/01/how-vermont-could-save-the-nation-from-patent-trolls/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericgoldman/2013/05/22/vermont-enacts-the-nations-first-anti-patent-trolling-law/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://money.cnn.com/2013/07/02/technology/enterprise/patent-troll/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/07/15/patent-trolls-now-account-for-67-percent-of-all-new-patent-lawsuits/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.vox.com/2014/8/19/6036975/new-study-shows-exactly-how-patent-trolls-innovation
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/06/conservatives-want-patent-reform-thats-new/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/29/new-zealand-just-abolished-software-patents-heres-why-we-should-too/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-465
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/03/the-patent-troll-crisis-is-really-a-software-patent-crisis/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015113513/http://www.wsgr.com/PDFSearch/09202004_patentpirates.pdf to http://www.wsgr.com/PDFSearch/09202004_patentpirates.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The Vagueness Criticism is Ridiculous.

"# Vagueness. The term "patent troll" is criticized as vague and its use as subjective.[12]"

12 is a link to a tiny, short article where he is asking the question for debate over if a Patent Troll is bad. It being confusing is mentioned once in the tiny article "Here’s my working definition of the confusing term: Patent Troll." Now, I don't understand where this link gets "vague" or "subjective" from. Aside from the article asking for more clarification on what a Patent Troll is. But that is the point of the article. You can't strike up debate over what a Patent Troll is for your site if you begin with "Patent Troll is clearly defined."

I don't think this criticism should be on the page. It's ridiculous. The source is not credible. It'd be like me going to the The Dark Knight page and listing a criticism of the movie as "Some people do not think it is a movie" and then linking to a similar page with the topic "Is this a movie?" It's not an article, it's not an editorial, it's essentially a message board. It shouldn't be on Wikipedia. If anyone else can find someone confused over the term of a Patent Troll, then that should be allowed to stay. But until then, I say we delete it. Plus, it's a very large article up to that point, how can a criticism be that it is confusing? Anyone who read through this would know it's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.214.207 (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hoarding

Isn't the actual term "hoarding" and is it not the term found in the literature. "Troll" is something relatively new no doubt, and from internet culture. -Inowen (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2018 (UTC)