This is particularly interesting because it seeks to characterise Apple as a patent troll (ie, owning patents and enforcing them, or features of them, without actually using the tech themselves).
Apple has had a lot of problems with patent trolls[0] and seems to be campaigning against trolling [1]. This isn't how Apple is usually characterised so the comparison really will sting their pride.
Apple is one of the biggest patent trolls in the world (by any of several metrics, the most meaningful in my personal opinion being the total amount of damages sought from infringement of patents not in use in any product). Just google 'bockstar'.
I think there is some conflation of 'patent troll' vs 'non-practicing entity'. The latter is a subspecies of the former. After multinational conglomerates got good at exploiting the (busted) US patent system, more specialized parasites -- of course! -- evolved to exploit it even more efficiently (by not producing anything, nor having any assets vulnerable to counterattack).
But just because you make products doesn't mean you aren't a patent troll. Honeywell and Apple are perhaps marginally better then Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures... but only because they are patent trolls who also produce things of value (to some people).
Patent-trolling-wise[1], they are the same.
[1]: Hyphenating only the last pair of words in an ad-hoc-compound adjective is not as bad as patent trolling, but still bad, IMO.
Yes, people often think that "troll" can only refer to non producing entity. It doesn't. If we go back to the analogy, fairy tale / fantasy troll would usually fix the bridge and demand toll from anyone passing by. While clearly racketeering, the troll can argue that he added value to the bridge. Same goes for patent trolls. Some are complete parasites, and there are patent trolls which produce some stuff, while being racketeers at the same time.
The common logic here is that racketeers want money for something they didn't really do (the troll didn't build the bridge, some company didn't really make or invent the tech that they demand money for and so on).
Apple can be seen as a patent troll. It doesn't have to mean non practicing entity - it can simply mean patent aggressor who uses patents for anticompetitive purposes. Non practicing trolls are just a subset of all patent racketeers.
> it can simply mean patent aggressor who uses patents for anticompetitive purposes
Then the term is meaningless. Patents exist solely for anticompetitive purposes. That's what they're supposed to do. Patents are supposed to provide protection from competition to promote innovation.
We can argue about what the patent system should look like (or if it should exist) some other time, but to call a patent troll anybody that "uses patents for anticompetitive purposes" is an entirely meaningless statement that completely misses the point of patents in the first place.
No, it's not meaningless. It can have different contexts. In the general sense, troll can mean racketeer. The fact that many trolls are pure parasites (i.e. while being racketeers they don't produce anything as well) doesn't mean that patent aggressors which do produce something can't also be called trolls when they engage in the patent protection racket.
I.e. using software patents for defensive purposes is OK. Using them for aggression in practice is patent trolling or protection racket, and it doesn't matter whether the troll produces anything or not. It's enough to see any real cases of patent aggression to understand that. MS, Apple and the like which do produce stuff but constantly engage in patent protection racket can be called trolls.
Using patents for encouraging innovation isn't the case here, since they come after competition which developed things independently, didn't copy anything from them and so on. They simply want to fight competition using their patents as weapons, or extort money from competitors (like MS does), and threatening them that if they fight some patents, they can pull out more. That's racket in its classic form.
Oh yeah, it is "the best defense is a good offense" strategy... Wait what? It is ok to use them defensively (that is, pull them out if someone threatens to sue you) But you can't use them for what they are actually intended for? That is for protecting your monopoly for a short period of time?
A patent holder doesn't "use patents for encouraging innovation" The government provides people with patents, to encourage innovation. But if you give me a patent, I don't have to run around using it to encourage others to innovate. What I can do, is make money on the item I already innovated. And maybe I'll have an incentive to innovate some more.
But to call someone a troll for using the patent that way it is intended to be used, because you don't like it, is just plain wrong.
> But you can't use them for what they are actually intended for?
Patents aren't intended for racket and stifling innovation.
> A patent holder doesn't "use patents for encouraging innovation"
Oh, really? Then take a look at the patent law again, and the reason why limited time monopoly is given (as patents). If using a patent prevents and slows down innovation, it goes against the reason it was given in the first place and is usually a good indicator of patent trolling / aggression and otherwise abuse of the patent system, as well as indicator that patent system is broken (or not well tuned).
I.e. normally patents shouldn't exist (monopoly is normally bad). But, they are granted to boost innovation. If results of patents usage is the opposite - something is wrong.
"who uses patents for anticompetitive purposes". So in other words, any party who uses patents for their intended purpose of granting a limited monopoly is a troll?
No, who uses patents for unintended purposes. Patents weren't intended for racket and stifling innovation. They were intended for encouraging innovation. However patent trolls use them for the opposite purpose.
To give an example. Let's say company A produces (i.e. invents) something independently of company B. Company B feels greedy, and starts using patents to attack company A. That's not encouraging any innovation - it's completely the opposite. There are many other examples how patents are used for wrong purposes which can be described as trolling.
Apple has had a lot of problems with patent trolls[0] and seems to be campaigning against trolling [1]. This isn't how Apple is usually characterised so the comparison really will sting their pride.
Seems like it might be true though...
[0] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/apple-top-target-...
[1] http://9to5mac.com/2014/04/03/apple-microsoft-and-others-gro...