1) In what way is it "doing harm" to the patent system? Usually, when people are vague about a harm, it is either because there is none, or it is some sort of vague "causing people to not respect [thing]" or some such. I suspect you mean the latter due to complaining about "the media". I, ahem, have very little respect for that viewpoint. I do understand the arguments respect for legal institutions being necessary for them to function, but respect is two-way - act disrespectfully enough, and nothing is going to save you. Perhaps more importantly, it is the patent trolls are the ones doing the damage, not "the media".
2) This patent troll is an NPE, which is usually (along with, you know, suing) the defining trait of patent trolldom. Why are you reciting grade-school nostrums about the Noble Idea of IP protection in general when responding to news about a particular entity in a particular case, who is quite clearly a troll? If I'm missing something, do clue me in.
3) If I'm misreading you, please do clarify. Being specific about harm, to whom, exactly, you're referring when bashing "the media", and perhaps why an extremely simplistic defense of patents seemed needed here would all be edifying.
> This patent troll is an NPE, which is usually (along with, you know, suing) the defining trait of patent trolldom.
Look at Goodyear. He was an NPE. He invented vulcanized rubber. Never saw a dime. They even stole his name and built a company around it. He didn't have the resources to sue.
Look at Robert Kearns. He was an NPE. He sued. It destroyed his life.
There's no special qualification to come up with an idea. Patenting is a painful process. But it's a way to protect yourself. Just because people are involved in a lawsuit doesn't say or mean anything.
Regardless, this company is not an NPE. They have a working implementation of their secure messaging patent that is available on the app store.
> In what way is it "doing harm" to the patent system?
It's doing harm by framing inventors as villains rather than innovators. You've judged this company based on no other information than that they are referred to as patent trolls in an online article. If it's that easy for a large company to quell innovators, then the purpose of patents in the first place - to foster innovation - is gone.
---
Regardless the verbiage is frequently inappropriate and certainly in this instance.
> In what way is it "doing harm" to the patent system?
Well here's a study showing that the user of the term "troll" had become widely used by media without any evidence to support their negative views. This has led to judges forbidding the use of that term at trials as it is unfairly prejudicial.
If it is improper in the court of law, one can reasonably assume it is improper in the court of public opinion as well. The effects of this bias can be seen in the usual comments on patent-related threads here and other forums, where the USPTO is regularly derided by people who don't know the first thing about patents. These people know only what the media tells them, and as the paper shows, media is highly biased. This bias is being spread to a large audience and is also being used to push for reform that may not necessarily be balanced. I'd say, yes, such rhetoric is hurting the patent system.
2) This patent troll is an NPE, which is usually (along with, you know, suing) the defining trait of patent trolldom. Why are you reciting grade-school nostrums about the Noble Idea of IP protection in general when responding to news about a particular entity in a particular case, who is quite clearly a troll? If I'm missing something, do clue me in.
3) If I'm misreading you, please do clarify. Being specific about harm, to whom, exactly, you're referring when bashing "the media", and perhaps why an extremely simplistic defense of patents seemed needed here would all be edifying.