or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gatorguy

?? Odd comment. Perhaps your post wasn't entirely clear.At the end of the day I think nearly every single business cares about profits.
They have never sued using any of their IP. They clearly and plainly claim never to assert any of their patents. Even doing so defensively would be asserting them. Again with the assumptions that the only value of a patent is to use it or sue someone else using it. You don't understand their business plan apparently. Read the FAQ's again (or for the first time).So why would "free-riders" feel any need to become an RPX member rather than just using the IP unlicensed?...
Nope.Read their pledge:"We aggregate capital from annual subscription fees to acquire dangerous patents and patent rights, with each RPX client receiving a license to every asset we own. We acquire those patents for defensive purposes, and we have committed to never assert these patents"RPX was not created as a PAE or Patent Assertion Entity, whereas Rockstar Consortium was. Taking these patents out of the Consortium's control is a good thing.Rest assured, RPX won't be...
They may. Microsoft as both a paying member of RPX and original Rockstar investor certainly does. But in truth it doesn't matter as RPX wouldn't sue Apple for using a patent owned by them anyway. That's not what they do. No one has anything to fear from RPX-owned IP.
Correct. They won't go after you for using one of them according to their website. Having the right to litigate a patent certainly doesn't make it an obligation to do so does it?I gave you a link earlier if you had any interest in understanding their business plan and the benefits of joining. Recognize any of the names on this list? They seem to feel it's worthwhile.http://www.rpxcorp.com/rpx-membership/rpx-client-network/
RPX is certainly no patent troll. They're one of the few patent aggregators pledging to never offensively assert a single one of the patents they control. This is a good thing.http://www.rpxcorp.com/
Good point and nice explanation. Thanks
edit
AFAIK no one connected with Google ever claimed they had no UK sales staff.What I did find was a staffer claim in front of Parliament that their UK sales staff made no sales in the UK and thus owed no additional taxes, something that would have to be based on some ridiculous technicality if true. In any event it's a lousy argument to use for tax avoidance even if it's possibly legal.EDIT: Thanks TimGriff I see the technicality now. While Google admitted to having sales...
Do what, make you or someone else aware of something you perhaps didn't know about?... and yes Nokia can return to building smartphones under the Nokia name in late 2016 if they choose to. At this point they only plan to license the name to other smartphone sellers rather than get back into manufacturing themselves.http://www.mobileworldlive.com/nokia-smartphone-brand-licensing-effort-cards-report
New Posts  All Forums: