[whateverman23]

This is the opposite of stifling innovation. It's literally not innovative, which is a big point of the ruling.

The company produces and sells watches with the technology. It's not a patent troll.

[mr_toad]

> The company produces and sells watches with the technology.

Technology that’s been around since the 30’s and has been put in many other devices including other fitness devices. Putting something in watch form is hardly innovation.

[mort96]

They may be selling products but that doesn’t mean they’re not patent trolls. This is clear patent troll behaviour even if other parts of the business is honest.

[lijok]

Patent trolls by definition do not produce their own goods using the patent

[mort96]

If Apple comes after another company for something basic that they have patented, I'm calling that patent trolling behavior.

[sokoloff]

By the common usage of the phrase, that is what it means.

[mort96]

The way I use the term, a company which engages in patent trolling is a patent troll. That seems natural to me, but I apologise if that’s unorthodox use.

[frakkingcylons]

It's not unorthodox, it's just a nonsensical circular definition.

[mort96]

It's not. Company uses their patents to troll others? Company is a patent troll.

[JohnFen]

What is your definition of "patent trolling"?

[pests]

Apparently using patents for the reasons intended. Or owning a patent and refusing to let others use it?

Entitlement?

[peyton]

I think using the ITC as the forum of choice for patent disputes qualifies. I can’t see why the courts can’t handle this. The federal agency that makes sure the windshield wiper fluid I put in my car is legit isn’t really set up for evaluating complex intellectual property disputes on medical devices.

[hn_throwaway_99]

Determining if imported products infringe on domestic US patents is literally one of the primary purposes of the ITC.