These blogs describe Howe as an NPE/patent troll, but there's a big difference between a guy that invents something, tries to market it, and then sues people who build off of his invention (fixing the flaws), and a modern day patent troll who collects a bunch of patents and just waits for someone to accidentally infringe.
I think the idea that all NPEs are trolls, which seems to be very common, is erroneous and unfortunate. It is probably true that all trolls are NPEs; it is easy to create an NPE, and there is considerable incentive to do so for the purpose of trolling, as it prevents the troll itself from being meaningfully sue-able (since it has no assets).
But at least in my opinion, being an NPE is not by any means all there is to being a troll. I think trolling primarily involves filing infringement suits without clear evidence that the defendant is actually infringing; the worst trolls are so cynical as not to even care. Suing end users rather than manufacturers is also trolling behavior.
The fact that we're swimming in low-quality patents is also part of the problem in that it makes trolling attractive and accessible. The use of such patents is another mark of trolling.
It's perfectly possible to be an NPE and enforce one's patents without doing any of those things.
The fact that we're swimming in low-quality patents is also part of the problem
Another part of the problem is the lack of education about the patent system in the general public. The number of rediculous assertions I've seen which are patently (heh) false is astounding. A recent example was a patent awarded to Amazon; the media reporting would have you think they got a patent for taking a photo of something in front of a white background. While that does form part of the claims, the actual details are extremely narrow, and the patent is almost worthless to Amazon.
Then there's the frequently brought up "Apple got a patent for rounded corners on a phone! The patent system has gone MAD!". This was a design patent, intended to stop others making phones that look like Apple's (both other big players like Samsung and HTC as well as Chinese knockoff manufacturers). Design patents are very different from standard patents; they're closer to copyright for physical things than patents.
These are just examples of the tip of the iceburg of ignorance I see every day when people discuss the patent system.
As for lots of "low-quality patents", I disagree that is actually true. It's just the bad ones that get reported on most frequently and loudly; it's the reason more people are scared of flying even though they have a much higher chance of dying on the car trip to the airport. The USPTO and other patent offices around the world are very good at rejecting things which don't (legally) deserve a patent. Generaly examiners are quite familliar with the state of the art of the technologies they examine and know when something is well known or an obvious improvement over the prior art. Sometimes they have to allow something that seems obvious because they have no legal grounds to reject it.
The knitting machine was denied a patent by the Queen of England because the invention was too good, and she was worried it would put the entire class of knitting women out of work.
"Thou aimest high, Master Lee. Consider thou what the invention could do to my poor subjects. It would assuredly bring to them ruin by depriving them of employment, thus making them beggars."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lee_(inventor)
