[chapill]

>Pretty obvious patent trolling

Not really. The patent was filed in 2000. Approved in 2007. It hasn't changed hands. The company makes software.

Believe it or not, this is the US system working as intended.

An obvious troll is a patent holding company, with no products, who purchases old patents, then goes on a suing spree for any company that uses printers.

[TillE]

Like the peculiarly specific definition of "startup" which is often used here, I don't believe that very specific definition of patent trolling is commonly accepted. I'm sure you could find examples from Slashdot 10+ years ago where it's clearly intended as a more general "abusive exploitation of patents for monetary gain".

[chapill]

The problem with accepting HN or Slashdot's definition is both groups are extremely biased in this matter. The general consensus is patent troll == non practicing entity.

https://thelawdictionary.org/patent-troll/

Everyone here can disagree all they want, but they're still wrong as far as most lay persons are concerned.

[gowld]

If someone can replicate your invention simply by hearing the title of your patent application, it's not "non-obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art", so not patentable.

[jMyles]

> Believe it or not, this is the US system working as intended.

I don't. And it's not.