(warning: this is longish - blame the 119 bluebooks...) I'm interested in this discussion for three reasons: I'm a list member; I'm a list member with some outider-ish attributes; and I've just finished grading a long seminar paper on patent trolls and how to define them. I'll take these in reverse order: On definitions: Among folks who care about such things, how to define a patent troll is hotly disputed. Some say trolls are unproductive rent-seekers who exploit the US patent system's lax standards of obviousness to hold up legitimate market participants. Others say that by identifying and resuscitating poorly-performing assets, parties labeled trolls perform a valuable market-clearing function analogous to that performed by, say, ASCAP or the Copyright Clearance Center. The right answer seems to be a little bit of both: some "true trolls" are mere exploiters, while other "market-clearers" are moving the market for intellectual property licensing in a direction that, 10 or so years from now, will seem wholly unremarkable. It seems to me that the same might be said of trolls on lists: some are "true trolls" while others are trying to move the discussion in a legitimate direction, albeit one that many list members find a tiresome hobbyhorse or otherwise want to avoid. [This should be obvious but in case it isn't, I intend no comment on which characterization fits the present controversy.] Some potted etymology: My dictionary lists roughly three definitions for "troll": to sing over and over again, as a round; to fish with a long line; a creature that lives in a cave. Patent trolls and list trolls present an oddly apt merger of the three definitions, which can be framed in a relatively neutral fashion: they fish with the same bait over and over again for a particular "catch" of interest to them, and many find them unsightly. (yup, way too many bluebooks!) On list outsiders: How do we decide what counts as trolling for AOIR purposes? Discussion of this question has mixed two distinct subquestions. The first subquestion relates to what counts as "internet research." This list's membership is diverse, and that's a good thing. I joined it because I had had my fill of "law and economics"; I figured a group of humanities and social science scholars would be more eclectic and openminded. That's true -- oy, except when it isn't. I've met a number of you and thought you were all very nice people, but you do tend to close ranks in a hurry when there is a whiff of crass commerce in the air. Whatever our faults, lawyers tend to be made of sterner stuff, and fwiw I think that behavior is worth reconsidering. These days, the age-old wall between "pure" academia and crass commerce is anything but. Foundations with agendas, partisan think tanks, corporate research centers, and even - gasp - for-profit educational centers are everywhere. The way most of us were educated, the old world made more sense, but the new one is rife with the sorts of hybridity and slippage that excite intense interest to list members when they crop up in other contexts. It would make more sense to consider the interesting questions before rushing to condemn whatever it is. The second subquestion relates to what counts as appropriate behavior on this list. I agree that bad behavior can poison even what ought to be a good topic. But it seems to me that blame is more equally distributed here than many acknowledge. I'm with whoever (Suzana?) suggested a fundamental distinction between calling someone a troll, forever and for always, and accusing someone of trolling. As I'm lawyering today, let's take the facts in the light most favorable to the "accused": someone who believes that he is an internet researcher and that list membership will assist him in pursuing his professional interests, and who wants to stop trolling and conform more closely to the etiquette of the list, might feel that he had done himself such irreparable harm the first time around that pseudonymity is the way to go. Unless you are someone who believes that trolls are trolls, forever and for always, that ought to be defensible. That doesn't make it the smartest choice; for myself, I would have preferred an apology to the list and a statement of intent to try harder not to insult people and waste their time. Two caveats, though: It's amazing how often otherwise-fully-functioning adults have difficulty doing this. It's also amazing how unforgiving other adults can be. Which brings me, in a roundabout way, to my last point: One fairly reliable way of distinguishing between "true trolls" and (trollish) market clearers seems to be that true trolls thrive on attention for its own sake. Whether they receive it, however, is one thing that is not within their control. So enough already about WRC. Please. Julie Julie E. Cohen Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center jec@law.georgetown.edu http://www.law.georgetown.edu/faculty/jec/