Talk:Patent privateer/Archive 1

Merger proposal
I propose that this orphaned article be merged into the Patent troll article as "patent privateer" is simply a much less common name for the same type of entity and practice. That article is much more developed and referenced than this one, whereas this article relies on only a handful of references to source the that are repeated. OccamzRazor (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree. The term 'patent troll' appears to be much more widely used. --Edcolins (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Abstain. (Change of mind after reading Talk:Patent holding company.) If the article 'Patent holding company' is kept in a separate article than the 'patent troll' article, it might well be better to merge 'Patent privateer' into 'Patent holding company'... It's interesting to observe the number of different terms that have been used to designate apparently related practices: "patent troll", "non-practising entity" (NPE), "patent assertion entity" (PAE), "non-manufacturing patentee", "patent shark", "patent marketer", "patent assertion company", "patent licensing company", "patent dealer", "patent privateer", "patent holding company", ... What is the correct way to handle this in Wikipedia? --Edcolins (talk) 07:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge to troll as to pejortive. Would support merge to patent assertion entity, and think patent troll article might need renaming. GDallimore (Talk) 13:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:POVNAME appears to suggest that the title 'patent troll' should be kept, because "the prevalence of the name (...) generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue." If you can show that 'patent assertion entity' is more prevalent in English-language reliable sources, then renaming may be needed. --Edcolins (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Reconsidering. With substantial rewriting and consolidation, the article might be salavageable on its own. In reading the references, I see that the article is more about the act of privateering than about privateers.  It is an intentional tactic of large technology firms who want to attack competitors.  If they file an infringement lawsuit against a competitor who also has an arsenal of patents, a counter suit alleging infringement usually occurs.  By transferring the patents to a PAE or PHC that does not manufacture products or provide patented services, the privateer organization has all of the benefits of a patent troll who has no worry about being countersued.  There could be anti-trust implications.  It's a rather new term not widely used in the media.  Perhaps some of us could try to consolidate it to clearly and succinctly focus only on privateering. OccamzRazor (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I am withdrawing the merge proposal for now to see if the article can be improved. OccamzRazor (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Merge them all into 'patent monetization'
I suggest to merge them all (i.e., "patent troll", "patent holding company", "patent privateer", etc.) into patent monetization. The reasons are that (i) it seems to me that the term 'patent troll' is mostly avoided in academic papers and public policy debates (the term 'troll' is obviously disparaging), and (ii) the term 'patent monetization entity' is emerging as a more neutral, all-embracing name. --Edcolins (talk) 07:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia != academic or public policy journal. Our scope is wider than that. Patent trolling, however conceived, is a distinct and important subject far more narrow than how patents are monetized overall. - Wikidemon (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Proposal is far too broad, covering completely different forms of speech. Patent monetisation is an action. Patent troll is a noun, but defined by the action of trolling, similarly patent assertion entities are defined by their actions. Patent holding companies are simply a corporate state of being, not an action. GDallimore (Talk) 13:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am withdrawing my suggestion, per WP:POVNAME. See above note regarding the prevalence of the term 'patent troll'. --Edcolins (talk) 14:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)