Patent troll
From eg
According to Wikipedia, utterly infested by other kinds of trolls, patent troll describes "a patent owner, frequently a small company, which enforces patent rights against accused infringers, but does not manufacture products or supply services based on the patents in question." Such a troll may however represent someone who does, accordingly any patent attorney must necessarily be considered to be a patent troll, as they focus their business on the enforcement of such an instructional monopoly.
Their opponents argue that they are in a position to negotiate licensing fees that are grossly out of alignment with their contribution to the alleged infringer’s product or service. They may have an "unfair" advantage over manufacturers since they are relatively immune to the burdensome litigation tactics which are a traditional front line of defense by large entities against small entities. However, when discussing patents, it is probably ridiculous to use the "term:fair". Large corporations may use these terms and arguments to intimidate individual inventors - while themselves collecting significant revenues enforcing their own patents against smaller or emerging competitors, including patents relating to technologies that they themselves do not implement in the marketplace. As with pretty much every use of the "term:troll", it tends to reveal its own hypocrisy.
That said, there is an ultra-reflexive interpretation of patent trolling. It can lead to new interpretations or overhauls of the instructional capital system itself, and drives creativity in expression of patentable works.
As always with trolls, advocates of one political position pretend to have identified their enemies objectively as another, lower, type of being. A typical perspective from those who work for technology vendors is extremely critical of some jurisdictions, notably the eastern district of Texas which is actually described as "troll-friendly". A session titled The Patent Troll Game' by attorney Roger Kennedy and inventor Terry Ludlow was summarized as follows:
•"Exploring recent trends in favorable treatment of patent trolls by courts in particular jurisdictions - Texas (eastern district) • Troll proofing your company to anticipate the threat of litigation • Knowing when to file litigation to protect your products • Keeping trolls in – check: The Patent Reform Act of 2006 - incorporating the “fairness” factor into the injunction standard - providing an automatic stay of injunction for appeals - proposed revisions to limitations on damages - beating the stacked deck – proposed changes to venue selection to address “troll-friendly” jurisdictions • Reflecting on eBay v. MercExchange and the right to an injunction"
