I think the blog title is a bit sensational here. 'Patent trolls', at least as I understand the term, do not produce products. That's the whole point: they're trolls because they do nothing but sue people, without adding any value themselves. Twin Peaks does produce products, so they aren't a troll. Red Hat has just found an interesting way to counter-sue in a fairly ordinary patent dispute.
The fact that Twin Peaks clearly waited until Gluster had been acquired by Red Hat before filing doesn't make it a troll.
That and it's a one-time counter claim for this specific situation. From the title I presumed that they had somehow made a 'generic' weapon that could be used to shut down any patient troll.
Suing a patent troll for GPL violations is impossible by definition. A patent troll is a non-practicing entity, so they don't produce anything (but lawsuits) and thus they don't distribute software and conversely can't be sued for GPL violations.
If whatever company that is suing on patent grounds is also producing software (like this current case), then they are not a patent troll by the most common definition of the term but just plain aholes.
Nah, a patent troll is anyone who trolls with patents. That doesn't need to be the only thing they do. The classic example, SCO, had actual products which weren't related in any way to their patent suits.
No, a patent troll is a non-practicing entity (NPE). The specific reason they're dangerous is because they aren't subject to counter claims. You can't come along and redefine a word simply because you don't understand it.
The term is fairly new and as such the common definition is still changing, but Wikipedia agrees with regularfry
Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.*
Patent troll is a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces patents against one or more alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive or opportunistic with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention.
I reject that definition and suggest that it should instead mean, "a pejorative term used for a person or company who enforces one or more patent(s) that do not fullfil the requirement of being non-obvious and inventive against one or more alleged infringers in any manner, especially if considered aggressive or opportunistic, or with no intention to manufacture or market the patented invention".
When I say patent troll, I mean someone using patents to delay innovation instead of using them to encourage innovation (as they were intended). In this case, there's clear prior art and they are suing after the company responsible was acquired by Red Hat. I'm not going to accept that someone is not a patent troll if they happen to have an application or framework that, e.g., redirects users to a online store for purchase of the full version of an app after tapping a link. Everyone in the field, the companies starting the lawsuits included, know that these patents should not have been issued.
The patent for the Mirror File System was applied for in 2001, years after Novell Netware had exactly this sort of thing built into the operating system. That is just one example of dozens that will surely come to light. Distributed, replicated filesystems have been around for decades.
The fact that Twin Peaks clearly waited until Gluster had been acquired by Red Hat before filing doesn't make it a troll.