from: http://rss.slashdot.org/ ~ r / Slashdot / slashdot / ~ 3/03Vcw56-tys/Evaluating-Patent-Troll-Myths:

An anonymous reader writes In a guest post on the blog Patently-O, Villanova University professor Michael Risch summarizes his detailed study of the methods and effectiveness of patent trolls He writes: It turns out that most of this I thought trolls. – Good or bad – was wrong …. Perhaps the biggest surprise in the study was the source of the patents I thought most of the patents from failed startups in these patents were represented (about 14% of the original assignees were dead), most are come .. companies still operating in 2010. Indeed, more than a third of the original assignees were listed, a subsidiary of a public corporation or the beneficiaries of venture capital. Only 21% were entities asserting patent at the time of grant, and many of those companies inventor property (such as Katz) rather than acquisition of entities (such as Acacia). … Another area of ​​surprise was the quality of patents. While the trolls almost never won their case if they were going to trial (only three cases have led to a violation conclusion on the merits), the percentage of patents invalidated on the bottom was lower than expected.