Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 2nd Nov 2013 17:24 UTC

Apple, Microsoft, and others, a little over a month ago in a letter to the EU, warning that the EU's new proposed unified patent law could lead to more patent trolling:

To mitigate the potential for abuses of such power, courts should be guided by principles set forth in the rules of procedure to assess proportionality prior to granting injunctions. And PAEs should not be allowed to use injunctions for the sole purpose of extracting excessive royalties from operating companies that fear business disruption.


A new front opened today in the patent wars between large technology companies, as a consortium that owns thousands of patents from the Nortel bankruptcy auction filed suit against Google and other manufacturers alleging infringement. Rockstar, which is owned jointly by Apple, Blackberry, Ericsson, Microsoft, and Sony, filed suit in US District Court in Texas. In addition to Google, the consortium has alleged infringement by Asus, HTC, Huawei, LG, Pantech, Samsung, and ZTE.

They're not just scumbags - they are lying scumbags.

Thread beginning with comment 576086
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 13:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Nelson "
Member since:

I don't understand why you're replying to my comment as if your emotionally charged thicket of equivocal bullshit mattered to me.

I think Google made serious strategic missteps and offered a way they could fix it. Your response has nothing to do with my point and everything to do with your delusion.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Nelson
by acobar on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 22:54 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Nelson "
acobar Member since:

First of, my argument was really simple, the attack path they chose to carry on Google, at least as of now and from what I read, is based on patents so generic that they should not be granted. So, they want money from something Google really should not need as they are asking money from trivial generic things. This is not far from "protection" mafia sells in the way that they try to force you to buy something that does not carry a real value.

Second, I come here to read different "opinions" about technology and other things I like, I don't have a "need" to agree or see things the way most do. Sometimes I think my arguments stand and sometimes I fell luck to get corrected and learn something new. I rarely feel personally attacked like you so frequently do when someone disagree with you, grow up and try, at least, to understand that people may have a different view of the world, we are not talking about math here, in which case, a Q.E.D would be easier to provide.

And finally, most of your comments seems to fulfill your agenda, your very own interests and, at least to me, they lack the needed detachment and logical argumentation that would entitle them to carry any value. Not that you should be "worried" about it, of course.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by Nelson
by Nelson on Sun 3rd Nov 2013 23:50 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Nelson "
Nelson Member since:

My comment stems from yours having absolutely nothing to do with the central part of my argument and being largely an aside.

Even if you had carefully examined all of the asserted patents in question (you have not) and cited exactly where they were broad, trivial, or had prior art (no, no, and no), it would've been unrelated to anything I was talking about.

Your personal opinions do not matter because you are not the Judge presiding over the case. The reality is that there are rules of the road with patents, rules industry players must abide by.

Your distaste for such rules is utterly irrelevant and non constructive, whereas my suggestions have everything to do with the realities of the impending litigation and operate within that statutory framework.

I'd probably be less annoyed if you were saying something that others haven't already regurgitated many times, bur you aren't. There's nothing new of value here.

Reply Parent Score: 3