The fact that Twin Peaks clearly waited until Gluster had been acquired by Red Hat before filing doesn't make it a troll.
The fact that Twin Peaks clearly waited until Gluster had been acquired by Red Hat before filing doesn't make it a troll.
If whatever company that is suing on patent grounds is also producing software (like this current case), then they are not a patent troll by the most common definition of the term but just plain aholes.
Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll
(this article is referenced: Alexander Poltorak. "On 'Patent Trolls' and Injunctive Relief"., ipfrontline.com, May 12, 2006)
Just being a jerk with a patent dosen't make you a patent troll.
Physician, heal thyself.
Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.
When I say patent troll, I mean someone using patents to delay innovation instead of using them to encourage innovation (as they were intended). In this case, there's clear prior art and they are suing after the company responsible was acquired by Red Hat. I'm not going to accept that someone is not a patent troll if they happen to have an application or framework that, e.g., redirects users to a online store for purchase of the full version of an app after tapping a link. Everyone in the field, the companies starting the lawsuits included, know that these patents should not have been issued.