Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 27th Dec 2013 18:19 UTC
Legal

Google has decided to fight back against the Apple and Microsoft-backed patent troll Rockstar. It has filed a lawsuit, asking the court to state that the Android platform does not infringe any of the patents the patent troll is asserting against Android, Google, and Android OEMs. Google describes Rockstar's trolling in no uncertain terms.

Rockstar produces no products and practices no patents. Instead, Rockstar employs a staff of engineers in Ontario, Canada, who examine other companies' successful products to find anything that Rockstar might use to demand and extract licenses to its patents under threat of litigation.

A very interesting tidbit is found further down in the legal documents - Google claims that Rockstar actually contacted companies that use Android, asking them to... Stop using Android.

On information and belief, Rockstar contacted and met with these California-based companies in order to discourage them from continuing to use Google's Android platform in their devices, and to interfere with Google's business relationships.

This Apple and Microsoft shell company is way, way dirtier than we already knew.

Thread beginning with comment 579523
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Rockstar is justified
by themwagency on Fri 27th Dec 2013 18:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Rockstar is justified"
themwagency
Member since:
2013-03-06

If you don't consider software patents bad, and protection racket and privateering dirty practices

You're adding labels which don't qualify. Protecting what you own is a simple concept that everyone can identify with. Labeling it racketeering to help your cause is nothing more than a straw man
(and Rockstar is exactly that - patent privateer

I responded to this comment in my parent statement to avoid having this conversation.... but as I said, the companies associated with rockstar are more than mere patent holders therefor this label is unjustified.
a thug company

Protecting what belongs to you do does not make one a thug.
working on behalf of MS and Apple

...and blackberry... e.g. all the companies that were infringed.
so they could be shielded from retaliation)

Shielded? It's not like its hidden. These companies have been very vocal about their association. There is nothing they need to fear for pursuing what's theirs save for the backlash from those in the tech news community telling their readership that these companies are doing the industry a disservice for protecting what belongs to them.
there is nothing really to discuss.

Agreed and yet this article remains on the site doing the bidding of fulfilling Google's only defense by calling their accusers names.

Edited 2013-12-27 19:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -2

RE[3]: Rockstar is justified
by f0dder on Fri 27th Dec 2013 18:58 in reply to "RE[2]: Rockstar is justified"
f0dder Member since:
2009-08-05

"If you don't consider software patents bad, and protection racket and privateering dirty practices

You're adding labels which don't qualify. Protecting what you own is a simple concept that everyone can identify with. Labeling it racketeering to help your cause is nothing more than a straw man.
" [/q]
Believing you can own an idea isn't going to get you very popular around here.

Edited 2013-12-27 18:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Rockstar is justified
by themwagency on Fri 27th Dec 2013 18:59 in reply to "RE[3]: Rockstar is justified"
themwagency Member since:
2013-03-06

Believe you can own an idea isn't going to get you very popular around here.


Hence the problem.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Assuming you aren't a troll...

Shielded? It's not like its hidden.


Wrong definition of shielded. Rockstar was set up as a purely offensive company. By not making any products, they can't be counter sued for patent infringement. The company was specifically set up to monetize patents and not to do anything with them. So not a shield that hides moves, but one that prevents a friendly company from being hit by a counter attack.

Reply Parent Score: 8