How is it that when Google bid for the Nortel patents, it was "defensive," but when Apple won, it was "trolling?"
Perhaps Apple bought them so that Google couldn't use them defensively against Apple's own legitimate patents? Perhaps Apple bought them so that Google couldn't use them offensively against Apple?
I am open to correction, but my understanding is that so far, the only suits Apple has launched against Android manufacturers (not Google!) are with respect to patents Apple has filed itself.
Buying the Nortel patents doesn't mean anything one way or the other until such time as someone files a lawsuit based on one of the Nortel patents. Which is, you must agree, the second part of the definition you quoted, the "and then sues someone for violating one of the purchased patents" part.
> How is it that when Google bid for the Nortel patents, it was "defensive," but when Apple won, it was "trolling?"
Because Google never sued any one on patents without being on the defensive. Apple and Microsoft have a track record on attacking big and small companies on patents.
Perhaps Apple bought them so that Google couldn't use them defensively against Apple's own legitimate patents? Perhaps Apple bought them so that Google couldn't use them offensively against Apple?
I am open to correction, but my understanding is that so far, the only suits Apple has launched against Android manufacturers (not Google!) are with respect to patents Apple has filed itself.
Buying the Nortel patents doesn't mean anything one way or the other until such time as someone files a lawsuit based on one of the Nortel patents. Which is, you must agree, the second part of the definition you quoted, the "and then sues someone for violating one of the purchased patents" part.