The idea of a "defensive" patent is that you only ever assert it against another company asserting its patents against you. If you file a patent with the intention of preventing people from using an idea, I suppose you could call that an "aggressive" patent.
> Wasn't protection against copying the original purpose of patents?
The original purpose was to provide an incentive for inventors to (a) invent stuff, and (b) disclose their inventions, so that after a limited time, the invention would be free (as in freedom) to use by any other party.
The problem now is that frivolous patents enable trolls to prevent, discourage, and stifle innovation, and the original purpose of the system is turned on its head.
When my cat plays with reflected lights dancing on the floor, she may well be in violation of somebody's patent.
When you see Google/Apple/Microsoft spending giga$ to acquire patent portfolios, it's not because they're short on brains: they need these patents to play the patent game. And that's so much money that's not being spent making better software for you and me.
> Wasn't protection against copying the original purpose of patents?
The original purpose was to provide an incentive for inventors to (a) invent stuff, and (b) disclose their inventions, so that after a limited time, the invention would be free (as in freedom) to use by any other party.
The problem now is that frivolous patents enable trolls to prevent, discourage, and stifle innovation, and the original purpose of the system is turned on its head.
When my cat plays with reflected lights dancing on the floor, she may well be in violation of somebody's patent.
When you see Google/Apple/Microsoft spending giga$ to acquire patent portfolios, it's not because they're short on brains: they need these patents to play the patent game. And that's so much money that's not being spent making better software for you and me.