Reference: Thomas Edison Was a “Patent Troll” (composed by a proponent of patent trolls)

THE US patent system, still awash with patent trolls, increasingly repels these trolls. The USPTO and the courts have become a lot tougher on them.

"The cuts are noticeable and some patent trolls close down 'shop' (they don't actually have shops; they create and sell nothing)."Do not expect the patent microcosm to view that as a positive development as that makes the patent microcosm more and more obsolete. The cuts are noticeable and some patent trolls close down 'shop' (they don't actually have shops; they create and sell nothing).

A short while ago somebody posted that same old worship of Thomas Edison, who was a businessman disguised as an 'inventor' (his business was cracking down on actual inventors). "11 February 1847," it said. "Thomas Edison was born in Ohio. He's been described as 'America's greatest inventor'."

"GE is part of this event, so it gets to post puff pieces in IAM while IAM defends Edison (GE)."He was not an inventor, he just 'stole' or took credit for other people's work and then patented that work.

IAM then responded with: "If Edison were alive now he’d be called a patent troll."

"He was," I told IAM. "But GE (with which Thomas Edison is sometimes synonymous) pays IAM now. So you'll whitewash this troll."

IAM has this new upcoming event sponsored by trolls like Sisvel, Finjan, and Finjan's sponsor Microsoft (among many others). Earlier today IAM did a puff piece for GE Ventures, notably by giving a platform to the "licensing head" (patent parasite). GE's relationship with IAM is better explained at the very end of this puff piece, which admits that this author is a "keynote speaker at [IAM's] IPBC Global in San Francisco on 11th June."

"Samsung does not seem to be paying IAM. Why, after all, would a victim of so many lawsuits pay a proponent of such lawsuits?"GE is part of this event, so it gets to post puff pieces in IAM while IAM defends Edison (GE). Edison mythology is one of those mythologies that serve to prove money buys history (or victors write it). It was only hours ago that we wrote about IAM doing something similar with Finnegan and yesterday (less than 24 hours ago) we wrote about it doing the same with Battistelli. That's just their business model.

The other day IAM wrote about Samsung's history of being the target of the most lawsuits ("Teva takes top spot from Samsung as the most targeted defendant in patent litigation in 2017"), citing the Lex Machina data which we mentioned earlier today. To quote: "The numbers come courtesy of Lex Machina’s annual review of patent litigation, which is the data analytics platform’s deep dive into the headline litigation numbers for 2017. While the ranking of most targeted companies featured a typical blend of tech giants including Apple, LG, Amazon, ZTE, Microsoft and Huawei, there was a significant jump in the number of pharma companies on the list as nine made this year’s ranking (up from four last year). [...] Lex Machina’s analysis does go into even greater detail including a look at the profound impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland which has seen a huge chunk of cases that might have previously been filed in the Eastern District of Texas move to other districts such as Delaware."

Samsung does not seem to be paying IAM. Why, after all, would a victim of so many lawsuits pay a proponent of such lawsuits? Watchtroll also wrote about Samsung earlier today, noting that some no-name parasite "filed [a patent lawsuit] in the Eastern District of Texas, alleg[ing] that wireless charging technologies incorporated by Samsung into their Galaxy S7 and S8 product lines copies technology which was presented to them by NuCurrent under the terms of a confidentiality agreement."

"IAM itself is funded by quite a few patent trolls."Samsung has many patents of its own (even some new ones mentioned in the news), but it rarely ever sues anyone. It's not quite a Korean tradition (patent aggression). In any event, one must learn to dintinguish between companies that create things (Samsung makes a lot of things) and firms that have nothing but lawsuits associated with activity. Xperi was described as a "licensing company" some days ago by IAM. When IAM uses that term it typically means "troll", but this term does not exist in IAM's lexicon. IAM itself is funded by quite a few patent trolls. ⬆