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 518947
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I was trying to explain what I consider the definition of a patent troll.

Patents are used and misused in a number of different ways. To collect money (for example Microsoft), to hinder competition (for example Apple). This is done by a number of different types of companies. Companies that use patents in their products (for example IBM), companies that don't (for example Lodsys).

My question was if a company abuses a patent once, does that make it a patent troll? What if they do it all the time? Do you consider both patent trolls, despite the big difference?

You probably have stolen something at least once in your live. Can you be considered a thief? What about someone who goes stealing on a daily basis. I wouldn't call you a thief, I call the other person one.

And that's the same with patent users/abusers. If they only exist to sue based on patents they have no intent on using it's clear that they are patent trolls. If they sue, get sued, but also build products this isn't so clear.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Apple isn't a patent troll, but they helped one get in to business. If they were one they would have kept the patents.

It's not something I agree with. They should acquire patents if they want to use them, not to use them to help patent trolls. But it is a clever move I guess, but not one that would win a lot of style points.

I wouldn't mind if Rockstar was hit by a massive flood.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

You're a very motivated wiggler. It doesn't matter what you think is relevant, what is relevant is that you claimed I said something which I didn't, not what you think I may have said.

Reply Parent Score: 2