or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Gatorguy

"In order to allow AdRoll and our Advertisers to reach the best inventory online, we work with third party advertising companies (our “Advertising Partners”) to help us recognize you and serve relevant advertisements to you when you visit a website or online service in their network. We also work with Advertising Partners who help us recognize you across different devices in order to show you relevant advertisements. Our Advertising Partners may collect information about...
Extortion. . . LOL. I'd ask for an example of their IP extortion but you don't have one.
But you didn't say either way if you believe RC is a Non-Practicing Entity. My guess is you do, not all that unlike MOSAID for instance.As for Google I'd call them many things if they knowingly joined in such an endeavor as Rockstar Consortium. Rockstar Bidco may have been OK as long as the ground rules on how the IP would be used were established in advanced.I don't see any circumstance where I'd support Google doing anything like RC.
So are all the patents used in lawsuits against Cisco, Google, and Time-Warner being practiced by the investors? If I'm reading you correctly and it turns out some of them are not then you would consider RC to be a troll?Curious too why when Bradipao or I say NPE you come back with patent "troll". It tends to direct the discussion in a highly negative direction when loaded terms like that are used.A really simple question then: Is RC a non-practicing entity, forget whether...
No idea if they use them. No doubt some of them do just as other companies no part of the group at all have licenses to use them. But the original bidders no longer control the ones being litigated. They belong to Rockstar Consortium and no single investor. RC is very plainly and by definition a Non-Practicing Entity, sometimes called a Patent Assertion Entity, or even a Patent Privateer. They are all at their core the same type of patent monetization company. one that's...
MM didn't pursue any new lIP lawsuits after Google bought them. Old ones in progress were allowed to play out, quite likely due to lawsuits aimed back at them from Apple and MS that were also continuing. Google didn't permit any new ones tho.That's neither unicorns nor dragons. It's fact.
To be more specific if Google decided to charge to use, or at least strongly encourage a small donation to the site owner rather than using advertisers' money to fund it would you buy in?
Even more think every NPE that sues Apple is a patent troll. Apple themselves are not above tossing the term around if it benefits them.
RC has been trying to off-load some significant number of patents, selling those they think have limited value for licensing. Last I read they haven't been very successful doing so. Thye did dump 100 or so with another. . . ahem. . . NPE, Spherix. Look for a few fresh patent suits from them as soon as their plans are worked out.http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/spherix-acquires-over-100-patents-and-patent-applications-portfolio-from-rockstar-consortium-238839271.html
Maybe's and might's, unicorns and dragons.In any event they weren't invited, and it's highly doubtful Google would have gone along in the Rockstar patent monetizing. They bailed on Intellectual Ventures years ago as soon as IV's management changed tactics and decided the best way forward was aggressive enforcement and demands against potential infringers. Apple too finally saw the light this year (or perhaps thinks Rockstar good enough), declining to invest in...
New Posts  All Forums: