Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 21st May 2012 23:47 UTC
Legal "He's one of 10 reverse-engineers working full time for a stealthy company funded by some of the biggest names in technology: Apple, Microsoft, Research In Motion, Sony, and Ericsson. Called the Rockstar Consortium, the 32-person outfit has a single-minded mission: It examines successful products, like routers and smartphones, and it tries to find proof that these products infringe on a portfolio of over 4,000 technology patents once owned by one of the world's largest telecommunications companies. When a Rockstar engineer uncovers evidence of infringement, the company documents it, contacts the manufacturer, and demands licensing fees for the patents in question. The demand is backed by the implicit threat of a patent lawsuit in federal court." And then people wonder why I call Apple and Microsoft patent trolls. These are the people destroying this industry, with Apple, Microsoft, RIM, etc. money. Sickeningly low.
Thread beginning with comment 518945
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

I did NOT state that Apple only once abused a patent. That's what you accuse me of and that's not what happened. You know it didn't and that's why you quickly changed your reply. You didn't just edit it, you completely changed it.


I completely changed it because I realized you wouldn't understand my point unless I spelt it out completely, and it seems you still don't.

Here's the run-down:

Thom made some statement about Microsoft, Apple and a few others about them being patent trolls.

You came up with some reply that they are not trolls, because if a company abused a patent once, they are "a company that abused a patent once".

However, the context was already set by Thom that the companies in question were the ones mentioned. Therefore, your reply about a hypothetical company abusing a patent once does no apply to the very real companies that do exist and have abused more than one patent.

Your rhetorical example is irrelevant because we never were talking about hypothetical companies.

By continuing to claim relevance, you are implying that either the mentioned companies only abused one patent, or that their patent abuse is no worse than one patent one time. You did not say it. But you may as well have said it.

Reply Parent Score: 6

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

You did not say it.


There.

Reply Parent Score: 1

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"You did not say it.


There.
"

But you may as well have said it.

Unless you are willing to admit your point was completely irrelevant.

A point about a hypothetical company abusing one patent one time is not relevant to a discussion about whether real companies like Microsoft or Apple, who have abused a lot more than one patent a lot more than one time.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Semantics, this.

I'd much rather hear your opinion on the topic at hand. It's pretty clear for everyone without a vested interest that Apple - among the others mentioned - is a patent troll, and this despicable story, which mysteriously won't find its way to the Apple fanatics' sites, only cements that. How does that make you feel? Are you ready to admit you were wrong about Apple re:patent troll? Or are going to pull another arbitrary condition out of your sleeve?

Reply Parent Score: 3

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

"You did not say it.


There.
"

Hopefully, here's a more helpful example of why your point was either irrelevant, or implying what I claim it implies were it not irrelevant:

Person 1: Hitler killed 6 million Jews. He committed genocide.

Person 2: If a person kills someone, that's hardly genocide.

Person 3: Well, good for that one person, but we're talking about Hitler.

Your point is irrelevant, because what one hypothetical entity does is not the question. If you continue claiming relevance for your irrelevant point, you necessarily end up arguing something ridiculous.

The easy thing for you is to simply admit your point is irrelevant.

Reply Parent Score: 2