Why the Polite Term for “Trolls” is Also a Misnomer

<i>So, if “non-practicing entity” isn’t the right term, what is? I propose something much simpler: “patent-holder.” That’s all that really matters, and puts the focus where it should be – on the patent itself. There isn’t a need to categorize the holder beyond that.</i><p>Yeah. There is. Trolling vs. the intended exercise of this &quot;negative right&quot;? : &quot;Its the difference between using a feather and using a chicken.&quot; We know it when we see it.

I highly doubt the founders intended questionable patents to be used by idle patent holders to extort licencing agreements from third parties who are actually building something.<p>I expect if given the choice, they&#x27;d be intelligent enough to choose the side of progress, rather than of hindrance.

We can call a lot of these NPE&#x27;s &quot;extortionists&quot; because that is what they do.<p>I suggest that only the inventor has the right not to work out their invention but any buyer of the patent afterwards should be forced to build that invention.

I agree that the term NPE is a misnomer. I disagree that there&#x27;s no difference between patent holders.<p>No single behavior makes a patent holder a troll, but a combination of behaviors do.<p>Good: A patent holder partners with licensees to produce their invention. Bad: A patent holder waits until somebody produces their invention to sue them.<p>Good: A patent holder tries to get their invention produced. Bad: A patent holder takes no steps to get their invention produced.<p>Good: A patent holder sues for infringement that does not discourage going to court. Bad: A patent holder threatens to sue under conditions that make going to court pointless.<p>Good: A patent holder is the inventor. Suspicious: A patent holder bought the patent from the inventor.<p>Good: A patent holder takes the necessary steps to make their patent known. Bad: A patent holder exploits the system to hide their patent as much as possible (submarine patents)<p>Good: A patent represents a suitably complex&#x2F;worthy invention with a clear and narrow definition. Bad: A patent is overly broad and claims a trivial invention.<p>A good patent&#x2F;patent holder will never fulfill all bad criteria listed above. However a patent troll will always fill all the bad criteria for obvious reasons.