>Patent Trolling was defined due to the 'trolls' being "non-practicing entities"
Though likely this is the commonly accepted definition, for all practical purposes this very naive definition. Perhaps not the case with Apple and the rectangular design, for purpose of legal protection, most patents are placed into entities that do nothing other than hold and license patents. (e.g. company A files patent 1, then assigns patent 1 to company A1 which in turn licenses it to company A the original inventor). This is elementary protection of intellectual property and legitimate; however, under your definition this makes company A1 a patent troll because the entity is non-practicing and only licenses and protects its patent.
According to the article Apple previously invested in IV patent funds, and those patent funds are non-practicing entities.
Conflating a specific lawsuit does not lump every action as "patents are bad" as I used a specific example based on the merits. And yes I admit it does not fall under your definition of troll, but I will continue to say a company is a troll who files, buys and enforces patents which are essential, obvious, and a copy of prior art already in the stream of commerce.
> "Though likely this is the commonly accepted definition, for all practical purposes this very naive definition. "
No, it's not. It's the actual definition that exists to draw a distinction between the unique situation posed by non-practicing entities and the added extortionate situation NPEs present, completely divorced from any concern as to whether their patents are particularly good, bad or whatever else.
If you want to say Apple has funded patent trolling, that's perfectly fine, because it's true. But that doesn't mean Apple's lawsuits against Samsung -- nor Samsung's against Apple -- are patent trolling.
> "Conflating a specific lawsuit does not lump every action as "patents are bad" as I used a specific example based on the merits."
You can certainly make a point about given actions being more or less conscionable on the merits. But even unconscionable actions simply are not trolling if they're undertaken by practicing entities.
If Apple were to fund IV and an IV subsidiary sues you, that's trolling, arguably by Apple, because you can't sue, threaten, cross-license, etc with Apple directly to make it go away.
If Apple were to sue you directly with the same hypothetical patent, that is not "trolling" because you can bring the typical array of legal strategies to the table.
Though likely this is the commonly accepted definition, for all practical purposes this very naive definition. Perhaps not the case with Apple and the rectangular design, for purpose of legal protection, most patents are placed into entities that do nothing other than hold and license patents. (e.g. company A files patent 1, then assigns patent 1 to company A1 which in turn licenses it to company A the original inventor). This is elementary protection of intellectual property and legitimate; however, under your definition this makes company A1 a patent troll because the entity is non-practicing and only licenses and protects its patent.
According to the article Apple previously invested in IV patent funds, and those patent funds are non-practicing entities.
Conflating a specific lawsuit does not lump every action as "patents are bad" as I used a specific example based on the merits. And yes I admit it does not fall under your definition of troll, but I will continue to say a company is a troll who files, buys and enforces patents which are essential, obvious, and a copy of prior art already in the stream of commerce.