I think they may be standing on shaky legal ground here and may have waived any rights they might have had if they had acted initially...sounds like sour grapes at this point. Hopefully the court will agree.
Ha ha ha...that is pretty nasty, note that Kodak and Nokia are the main aggressors here.
Hmmm...seems like there is a definite indirect relationship between those companies that are going well and those that aren't and the number of times they go out and sue someone.
Note that Google isn't suing anyone at the moment...maybe they are not as evil as this forum seems to think? Or on the other hand, maybe it is more likely they are just trying to stay under the radar.
Back on topic though, this seems like a very convoluted case of patent trolling, like a few have indicated - but I have no idea how this works. Based on the Google search, it seems fairly obvious that this holding company is not the original owner of the patents in question. One would have to wonder how long they have owned the patents, who the original owners were, how they used them, if any product or product plan has ever been made by the original owners or if they ever received any compensation or licensing fees at any time in the past for these technologies.
Seems like an easy way to make a few million bucks. do some research, go out and buy the patents for a nominal fee and ask for a reasonable settlement amount from each defendant. Everything settles quietly and you make a few million profit off the whole affair. Repeat.
Note that Google isn't suing anyone at the moment...maybe they are not as evil as this forum seems to think? Or on the other hand, maybe it is more likely they are just trying to stay under the radar.
Or maybe it's because that usually, the company that sues is the one who is being copied ..... not the one who is copying, ... no?
Comments
Ha ha ha...that is pretty nasty, note that Kodak and Nokia are the main aggressors here.
Hmmm...seems like there is a definite indirect relationship between those companies that are going well and those that aren't and the number of times they go out and sue someone.
Note that Google isn't suing anyone at the moment...maybe they are not as evil as this forum seems to think? Or on the other hand, maybe it is more likely they are just trying to stay under the radar.
Back on topic though, this seems like a very convoluted case of patent trolling, like a few have indicated - but I have no idea how this works. Based on the Google search, it seems fairly obvious that this holding company is not the original owner of the patents in question. One would have to wonder how long they have owned the patents, who the original owners were, how they used them, if any product or product plan has ever been made by the original owners or if they ever received any compensation or licensing fees at any time in the past for these technologies.
Seems like an easy way to make a few million bucks. do some research, go out and buy the patents for a nominal fee and ask for a reasonable settlement amount from each defendant. Everything settles quietly and you make a few million profit off the whole affair. Repeat.
It's because they have connections.
Note that Google isn't suing anyone at the moment...maybe they are not as evil as this forum seems to think? Or on the other hand, maybe it is more likely they are just trying to stay under the radar.
Or maybe it's because that usually, the company that sues is the one who is being copied ..... not the one who is copying, ... no?