[kbenzle]

If this is the kind of impetus needed to set off patent reform, all the better. I would argue against the "Troll" label, it is a legal firm doing its job very well. The Troll bashers I assume would prefer the companies to just leave this $ to the infringes? Why? Is it somehow immoral to use the legal system for financial gain? No, it is not, not at all. I'd say good on them for finding the loop holes and driving their $600M lorrie straight through it to the bank. Don't say fuck the trolls, fuck the patent system in the US which Apple has used to the detriment of many young companies too, they are all playing the game.

[dangerlibrary]

Typically the 'troll' label is applied to companies like Virnetx because they produce nothing of value. They are strictly rent seekers - net negative economic value creators.

"It's a massive verdict for VirnetX, a company that has no products and makes its money solely through patent litigation."

[kbenson]

Even that's selectively looking at the facts though. At some point they paid for those patents, and that theoretically put money in the pockets of creators, incentivizing them to create more.

That said, to my eyes it's clearly a subversion of the intended purpose of patents, and is societally damaging, so I see no problem with derogatory labeling of this behavior and those that take part in it. It's unfortunate, but it's an important part of getting consensus in a short time frame with a large populace.

[bobwaycott]

That's not selectively looking at the facts at all. The facts are plain:

- company buys patents for the purpose of seeking rents

- company aggressively pursues others who are independently creating potentially valuable products to shake them down for rents

- company produces nothing of value with the patent except for increased wealth transfer by extracting value from others' work

That they [theoretically] put money in someone's pocket to get the patent in the first place does not change any of these facts. And calling attention to the behavior isn't selectively dealing with the facts. They exist purely for rent-seeking.

[kbenson]

> That they [theoretically] put money in someone's pocket to get the patent in the first place does not change any of these facts.

Actually, depending on your definition of rent seeking, it either makes it rent-seeking or not, so it may affect those facts. Would inventors be incentivized to create as much if there wasn't a market for these types of patents? Even if you discounts the type of patents that trolls attempt to control as useless, can we say that those crappy patents didn't subsidize better inventions?

Now, I'm not defending patent trolls, just noting that it may be a mistake to assume there is no economic value to what they do, even though the net outcome is likely negative. The positive and negative consequences may not be entirely comparable, making this easy to overlook.

[Bjartr]

Wait, what? Since when is exploiting the legal system for financial gain not immoral?

[replies_to_all]

Since lawyers existed?

[stepanhruda]

Legal != moral

[st3v3r]

" Is it somehow immoral to use the legal system for financial gain?"

Yes. Yes it is.

[replies_to_all]

Yep, if the "trolls" are trolls so is Apple, Adobe, Microsoft, Google, all of them, are we saying the US is made up of all trolls?

[st3v3r]

"Trolls" don't do anything with the patents other than sue people. You'd be pretty hard pressed to say those companies don't use their patents.