I am not a troll, so get off of my bridge!
It is a weird feeling to sit their explaining what you love to do for a living, while your audience is blinking like toads in a hail storm. But nothing caps the chilling effect of someone concluding “oh, you’re a patent troll”. I generally follow up trying to explain the difference between a patent troll and what I do but, I can tell by looking in their eyes (between blinks) that they are thinking “troll”.
Am I a troll? No. I am an engineer, trapped inside the body of an attorney, and smart enough to realize that billing by the hour means that I don’t make money while I sleep – although some may argue that point.
What do I do? I identify slick inventions, and I write incredibly solid patents and prosecute the heck out of them until they are allowed. I greatly abhor having to write great patents on crappy inventions but alas, sometimes I am forced to do so. But when I see a fantastic idea (such as those developed by ZapMedia) it is a rush to jump on board. And, well, sometimes along the way, I find that I am willing to take a risk on an invention and do some free legal work. Of course this always includes taking an equity position. At that point, part of the patent is mine. And just like you would not let someone tailgate in your front yard, I certainly am going to assert my patent rights.
And so, yes, I go after companies to assert my government granted monopolistic patent rights and, sometimes I do that on behalf of a client’s patent rights for a contingency fee. At other times, we look for parties that would benefit by taking a license or purchasing an intellectual property asset.
So, call me a troll if you will but, the bottom line is – its my bridge so get off of it 
Gregory Scott Smith
gsmith@lavagrouplaw.com
It seems a few trolls have ruined it for others. Problem I see is that the true small innovator still has the odds stacked against them. Large companies have the option to:
1) dismantle patent in court (if the inventor finds the $resources to continue)
2) find a workaround
So they can use this as leverage during negotiations, if inventor license fee is too high they’ll just pursue #1 or #2. In many cases that might be fair but it seems if the invention is worth say $1million they would most often purse #1 or #2 (and if lose then appeal). So any rough ballpark numbers on what the $numbers are for #1 or #2?
Keep up the informative posts!
Jodi
December 30, 2008
Jodi, thanks for the very well said comment. And yes, you are totally correct that a few folks have really abused the system (i.e Katz). The good news is that patents are presumed valid unless proven by preponderance of the evidence to be invalid or, not infringed. A company is looking in the face of easily $1M to go to court and typically much more than that. Finding a work around can be quite less expensive, or magnitudes more expensive depending on the patent. I always tell the small innovator that getting a patent is the EASY job and that they should realize before spending several thousand dollars that enforcing the patent is the big deal – if that is their goal. The fortunate thing is that there are plenty of firms willing to take contingency cases if a small innovator has a solid patent. But generally speaking, well over 95% of patents do not generate any revenue. Enforcement should be sought only after significant due diligence. And that is what we are passionate about, helping folks with solid patents get what they deserve from the big guys that kick sand in their faces.
mindminer
December 30, 2008