I didn't say anything about patent validity, only that it's arguable ARM does not meet some possible definitions of NPE. I admit that the reference to trolls buying patents near the end of my second sentence slightly muddies that intended meaning.
A patent troll, then, could argue its "practise" is "developing" undervalued patents by buying them off investors, who receive the value up-front, and then licensing them.
ARM is, for all intents and purposes, a non-practising entity. It's just not a patent troll. The folly is in assuming all NPEs are patent trolls. Carving the ARMs out of the NPEs will take more thought that lobbing exceptions at a general idea. Minimum viable products don't work in law because switching costs are high.
> ARM is, for all intents and purposes, a non-practising entity.
I'm fairly certain ARM employs more technologists than lawyers. They also make actual products, and even if the patent system disappeared tomorrow, designing processors would still be a viable business. In this way they differ from trolls, who make nothing of value but are merely parasitic on the productive economy.
You're using trolls and NPE's interchangeably. When an NPE buys patents from the inventor, that is a contribution to the productive economy. The possibility of a buy-out drives productive activity (this is the same as startups who hope to get bought out by Google, etc).
In the end a judge will make a judgement, which means they can take actual intent of the rules of what makes a company a non-practicing entity into account. Your point about high switching-costs is valid, but the law is not a blind rules engine.
I really don't get the "ARM is an NOE" thinking. They spend a lot of time and money developing the product they license. If ARM is an NOE then so is every software company.
