This is pretty much the textbook definition of a patent troll - company acquires other company for patents, does not make a product, and then starts suing others for patent infringement.
Calling someone a patent troll usually also requires that they didn't invent the stuff they're trying to license, but simply bought it.
You know, like the way that Apple and its cohorts bought up all those Nortel patents, then found out they weren't that good for defense, and "sold" them to a patent troll consortium they created just to investigate and sue other companies.
In this case, the company and its board is made up of the actual inventors, including people involved in the IP that they later bought.
Basically, it's a group of very smart people who actually invented and patented related things, and pooled their resources to be more powerful.
That said, I glanced at their primary patent, and it sure seems like an obvious invention to me to flip between sending messages either via your app or via SMS, depending on what capabilities the recipient has.
Are you aware of a single time Apple has sued someone for violating a patent on something they had not implemented?
Sure. Just last year, Apple sued Samsung over a patent claim that Apple did not use themselves.
It became news because Apple's lawyers complained about Samsung's lawyers mentioning this fact to the jury.
Apple never patented pinch to zoom.
I know. Tell it to that person who claimed they did or at least claimed they invented it.
I don't think they should be invalidated, but if you want to assert rights for the patent then you should be doing something with it. Patents were designed to allow people expending resources on research to have a protected period to reap the profits of that research. Are there any non-practicing entities doing that?
As I said, I think that licensing DOES count as practicing a patent. Especially if the patent holding company is made up of the inventors, as in this case.
Unlike, for instance, large companies (such as Apple, MS, Samsung, Google) patenting everything they can think of, even if they have no plans to ever use it.
But then, I have to remember that a primary official purpose of a patent is to prevent others from using the same invention unless the inventor is willing to license it. Another primary purpose is so that the invention becomes known, for others to springboard from, and so that in time, it becomes available to everyone. The trouble is, the current two decades period of exclusivity is probably too long for today's world, at least in the world of software.
