That is not the definition of a patent troll. The Rockstar consortium exists to protect the products of the owners. .
Nope, they do not Soli. They exist simply to monetize RC's patent holdings. That's clear from every statement they've made. Remember the claims Veschi makes that neither Apple, nor MS nor Sony have any influence on their enforcement activities?
And what business of the partners was being protected by suing Cisco anyway? What business of the partners is Rockstar protecting by suing Time-Warner Cable? Further Apple doesn't own a single one of Rockstar's asserted patents, nor does Microsoft or any other bidding partner. They are investors in Rockstar the company. It is Rockstar Consortium who now owns that IP and any other company assets if there are any. Apple just owns some percentage of their stock as do the others. Want proof? RC could not have successfully brought suit against anyone unless they substantially owned the IP they were asserting. They would not have had standing to do so per the Federal Courts.
Anyway, regarding your argument, Nokia and Microsoft are major investors in MOSAID and contributed quite a number of patents to their enforcement efforts. So MOSAID isn't an NPE either? Apple was the first big contributor to Digitude Innovations. So Digitude isn't an NPE either? Should be pretty clear that both companies are.
So no Rockstar is really no different from any other NPE other than the names of the investors behind it. But perhaps you'd be more comfortable with Rockstar Consortium being referred to a Patent Privateer. Sounds a little more pirate-ty and a little less troll-ly.
Leaving aside the definition of what constitutes a patent troll, there is another dimension to the 'IP Aggregation companies' as I prefer to call them. Scenario: An SMB with a couple of patents finds that a Chinese company is producing copies that clearly and illegally are in breach of their IP. What to do? Take action against the foreign company in a far off land?...not remotely feasible for a small company with limited financial resources. Take action against the importers and companies that sell those competing products?...even that is far beyond a small company's reach where to even issue a cease and desist letter can cost thousands of dollars. Or.... Approach an IP Aggregation body, who will take your IP, fight your case for you with their considerable financial and legal resources and force the importer and their clients into court to settle the matter...all at zero risk to the small company. Disclosure. This is the path I took. I lost control of my two patents, received but a fraction of the awarded damages which, of course, by dint of some creative accounting were swallowed by outrageously expensive legal work...BUT...I did obtain a licensee's agreement that rewards me financially and deters similar actions in the future. Not ideal I agree, but for the life of me, I can't think of another solution open to a small company or an individual inventor. Sorry, but I can't put any more meat on the bones of the case - I'm subject to an NDA regarding the parties concerned, the outcome of the judgement and the financial terms of the settlement. The law sucks in this regard. Not everything these 'aggregaters' do is to my liking, but they do serve a purpose in certain circumstances where trade organisations have zero power to act on your behalf.
So Google kept Motorola's patents for what reason if they are not producing phones?
To keep them away from NPE's and to back their OS'es and products? IIRC Moto was rattling their IP sabers, with veiled threats to even sue other Android licensees for potentially infringing activity. At the end of the day Google got all of Moto's IP for roughly the same price as Apple, Microsoft, Sony, etc paid for the Nortel patents, most now owned by Rockstar. Perhaps Google should assign those 20k+ patents to an NPE for monetizing too? Bet they could make more than a few bucks with 'em. A new owner wouldn't necessarily have to honor old licensing agreements.
There were so many patents for sale that a group of companies got together to bid and buy the patents as a group so that they did not have to sue each other. Google was asked to join Rockstar but they declined...
No, Google was not invited to join the Rockstar group.
Doesn't seem like much a return on a 4.5 billion dollar purchase.
But, to the members of the Rockstar constortium, the peace of mind that comes with knowing that Google doesn't own the patents ...... is priceless.
It's not about how much money the members of the condortium makes licensing their patents, but how much money they save by not having to pay, if Google had gotten the patents. It is rumored that Microsoft make over $2 Billion a year from Android licensing fee. If Google have gotten the patents, that figure might have been severly reduced by some cross licensing agreement. I'm sure Microsoft already got their moneys worth.
Nope, they do not Soli. They exist simply to monetize their patent holdings. That's clear from every statement they've made. Remember the claims that Apple, nor MS nor Sony have any influence on their enforcement activities? And what business of the partners was being protected by suing Cisco anyway? What business of the partners is Rockstar protecting by suing Time-Warner Cable?
Nokia and Microsoft are investors in MOSAID and contributed quite a number of patents to their enforcement efforts. So MOSAID isn't an NPE either?
No Rockstar is no different from from any other NPE other than the names of the investors behind it.
And just how would you go about "protecting the products of the owners" if those products are patents? Rockstar had said all along that they will not deny anyone a license to those patents and that the licensing would be fair. Isn't that the same as "monetizing their patent holdings" while "protecting the products of the owners"? Letting others use the patents for free is not "protecting the products of the owners" and neither is denying others from using those patents.
And just how would you go about "protecting the products of the owners" if those products are patents? Rockstar had said all along that they will not deny anyone a license to those patents and that the licensing would be fair. Isn't that the same as "monetizing their patent holdings" while "protecting the products of the owners"? Letting others use the patents for free is not "protecting the products of the owners" and neither is denying others from using those patents.
Every NPE is in it to license IP arent't they? NPE's just lack any real products so are generally immune from counter-suits that might be leveled against product-producing companies like Apple, or Samsung ,or Sears, or General Electric. Because of that they can be much more aggressive and demanding than companies that practice what they patent. It's a really simple concept.
Why do you think Apple gave IP to Digitude to use for IP enforcement and monetizing? I personally think Apple didn't want to look like the bad guy for suing over patents they themselves didn't even use, but the patents had value as weapons against competitors. An NPE leaves them relatively clean hands by someone else doing the dirty work.
Every NPE is in it to license IP arent't they? NPE's just lack any real products so are generally immune from counter-suits that might be leveled against product-producing companies like Apple, or Samsung ,or Sears, or General Electric. Because of that they can be much more aggressive and demanding than companies that practice what they patent. It's a really simple concept.
Why do you think Apple gave IP to Digitude to use for IP enforcement and monetizing? I personally think Apple didn't want to look like the bad guy for suing over patents they themselves didn't even use, but the patents had value as weapons against competitors. An NPE leaves them relatively clean hands by someone else doing the dirty work.
The members of the consortium handed over the control of their patents to Rockstar so that licensing of those patents can be done in a fair manner. That is what Rockstar meant when stated that they don't have to answer to any of their members when handing out licenses. If Apple or Microsoft had kept control of the patents, they might be tempted to ask for exhorbent licensing fees or deny a license, to a competitor wants to license some patents. But Rockstar, not having to answer to any of its members, could license those patents in a fair manner to anyone that wants to pay, regardless if its a major competitor (to any of its members).
That fact that Google reached an agreement with Rockstar for licensing some of the patents is proof that Rockstar licensing must be fair. Otherwise Google would just continue business as usaual and use the patents without paying. Google is not known for paying to use patents that they don't own. So the license fee must be pretty reasonable if Google is willing to pay for it. It doesn't sound like Apple (or Microsoft) is being the bad guy here. Or do you think that if Google has to pay anything at all, to use patents they don't own, someone is being a "bad guy"?
The members of the consortium handed over the control of their patents to Rockstar so that licensing of those patents can be done in a fair manner. That is what Rockstar meant when stated that they don't have to answer to any of their members when handing out licenses. If Apple or Microsoft had kept control of the patents, they might be tempted to ask for exhorbent licensing fees or deny a license, to a competitor wants to license some patents. But Rockstar, not having to answer to any of its members, could license those patents in a fair manner to anyone that wants to pay, regardless if its a major competitor (to any of its members).
That fact that Google reached an agreement with Rockstar for licensing some of the patents is proof that Rockstar licensing must be fair. Otherwise Google would just continue business as usaual and use the patents without paying. Google is not known for paying to use patents that they don't own. So the license fee must be pretty reasonable if Google is willing to pay for it. It doesn't sound like Apple (or Microsoft) is being the bad guy here. Or do you think that if Google has to pay anything at all, to use patents they don't own, someone is being a "bad guy"?
I never said it wasn't fair. Actually I think it's completely fair according to the legal rules in place. Rockstar is still by definition an NPE, which many here less politely call a patent troll when it's Apple being sued by one.
And you're correct that the licensing fee is almost certainly a relative pittance if both Cisco and especially Google were willing to pay rather than fight (thus the $188M guesstimate) Historically Google has been excellent at challenging patent claims against it, oft-times making that IP substantially worthless by successfully questioning its validity.
A Patent troll is a company that doesn't produce what they own the patents on.
That's not correct either. There are plenty of inventions in which the inventor didn't have the means to produce it, but was willing to license it. A patent troll neither uses it, nor allows anyone else to. Apple didn't use their data detection patent they got in 1996 until the iPhone.
Last summer, Larry Ellison had re-affirmed his company’s take on this, “When you write a program for the Android phone, you use the Oracle Java tools for everything. And then at the very end, you press a button and say, ‘Convert this to Android format.’
Now I understand all those interoperability arguments, and what could be more "fair use "[
That's not correct either. There are plenty of inventions in which the inventor didn't have the means to produce it, but was willing to license it. A patent troll neither uses it, nor allows anyone else to. Apple didn't use their data detection patent they got in 1996 until the iPhone.
False. The Data Detection software was used in the Newton and in MacOS at one point.
False. The Data Detection software was used in the Newton and in MacOS at one point.
I think perhaps he meant the specific claim from the '647 patent asserted as infringed by Samsung isn't practiced by Apple themselves. I'd have to go back and look but Ii think that was determined to be the case.
Personally, I think the term "patent troll" is not a useful term, as evidenced by this discussion. One person's IP licensing company is another person's patent troll; the only difference is which on side of the courtroom you're sitting. If Google had done exactly what Apple and Co. did and formed Deathstar Consortium and sued Apple over some IP, most people here would be referring to Deathstar as a classic patent troll taking advantage of the bizarre legal climate of East Texas. But because Apple is one of the investors in Rockstar, it can't be considered a troll.
To me, the only offensive aspect of these IP licensing lawsuit stories is when a company sits on their patent for years--letting a company infringe on it without any notice--and then sues for astronomical damages. There should be a defense of "you knew that, in your opinion, we were infringing, but you did nothing about it, therefore--for some period of time--you were implicitly granting us permission." Then at least these companies wouldn't be playing a strategic game of "Gotcha!" rather than being upfront trying to negiotiate licensing terms. I expect that the majority of IP licensing firms don't play this game, but the ones who do tarnish the whole field (and give rise to stupid terms like patent troll).
No, Google was not invited to join the Rockstar group.
But Google was invited to join the group (composed mainly of Apple and Microsoft) when the Novell patents went up for sale. But they declined. If Google had join back then, they most likely would have been be part of the Rockstar consortium (composed mainly of Apple and Microsoft) when the Nortel patents went on sale. (But even then, Google might have still went off on their own to try to aquire the Nortel patents all for themselves.) Maybe Google didn't get the invite to join Rockstar (for the Nortel bidding) becasue Apple and Microsoft already had an idea how Google was going to respond.
Comments
Every "patent troll" has investors behind it. It doesn't make them practicing entities.
And what business of the partners was being protected by suing Cisco anyway? What business of the partners is Rockstar protecting by suing Time-Warner Cable? Further Apple doesn't own a single one of Rockstar's asserted patents, nor does Microsoft or any other bidding partner. They are investors in Rockstar the company. It is Rockstar Consortium who now owns that IP and any other company assets if there are any. Apple just owns some percentage of their stock as do the others. Want proof? RC could not have successfully brought suit against anyone unless they substantially owned the IP they were asserting. They would not have had standing to do so per the Federal Courts.
Anyway, regarding your argument, Nokia and Microsoft are major investors in MOSAID and contributed quite a number of patents to their enforcement efforts. So MOSAID isn't an NPE either? Apple was the first big contributor to Digitude Innovations. So Digitude isn't an NPE either? Should be pretty clear that both companies are.
So no Rockstar is really no different from any other NPE other than the names of the investors behind it. But perhaps you'd be more comfortable with Rockstar Consortium being referred to a Patent Privateer. Sounds a little more pirate-ty and a little less troll-ly.
Scenario: An SMB with a couple of patents finds that a Chinese company is producing copies that clearly and illegally are in breach of their IP. What to do? Take action against the foreign company in a far off land?...not remotely feasible for a small company with limited financial resources. Take action against the importers and companies that sell those competing products?...even that is far beyond a small company's reach where to even issue a cease and desist letter can cost thousands of dollars. Or....
Approach an IP Aggregation body, who will take your IP, fight your case for you with their considerable financial and legal resources and force the importer and their clients into court to settle the matter...all at zero risk to the small company.
Disclosure. This is the path I took. I lost control of my two patents, received but a fraction of the awarded damages which, of course, by dint of some creative accounting were swallowed by outrageously expensive legal work...BUT...I did obtain a licensee's agreement that rewards me financially and deters similar actions in the future.
Not ideal I agree, but for the life of me, I can't think of another solution open to a small company or an individual inventor.
Sorry, but I can't put any more meat on the bones of the case - I'm subject to an NDA regarding the parties concerned, the outcome of the judgement and the financial terms of the settlement. The law sucks in this regard.
Not everything these 'aggregaters' do is to my liking, but they do serve a purpose in certain circumstances where trade organisations have zero power to act on your behalf.
To keep them away from NPE's and to back their OS'es and products? IIRC Moto was rattling their IP sabers, with veiled threats to even sue other Android licensees for potentially infringing activity. At the end of the day Google got all of Moto's IP for roughly the same price as Apple, Microsoft, Sony, etc paid for the Nortel patents, most now owned by Rockstar. Perhaps Google should assign those 20k+ patents to an NPE for monetizing too? Bet they could make more than a few bucks with 'em. A new owner wouldn't necessarily have to honor old licensing agreements.
No, Google was not invited to join the Rockstar group.
Doesn't seem like much a return on a 4.5 billion dollar purchase.
But, to the members of the Rockstar constortium, the peace of mind that comes with knowing that Google doesn't own the patents ...... is priceless.
It's not about how much money the members of the condortium makes licensing their patents, but how much money they save by not having to pay, if Google had gotten the patents. It is rumored that Microsoft make over $2 Billion a year from Android licensing fee. If Google have gotten the patents, that figure might have been severly reduced by some cross licensing agreement. I'm sure Microsoft already got their moneys worth.
Nope, they do not Soli. They exist simply to monetize their patent holdings. That's clear from every statement they've made. Remember the claims that Apple, nor MS nor Sony have any influence on their enforcement activities? And what business of the partners was being protected by suing Cisco anyway? What business of the partners is Rockstar protecting by suing Time-Warner Cable?
Nokia and Microsoft are investors in MOSAID and contributed quite a number of patents to their enforcement efforts. So MOSAID isn't an NPE either?
No Rockstar is no different from from any other NPE other than the names of the investors behind it.
And just how would you go about "protecting the products of the owners" if those products are patents? Rockstar had said all along that they will not deny anyone a license to those patents and that the licensing would be fair. Isn't that the same as "monetizing their patent holdings" while "protecting the products of the owners"? Letting others use the patents for free is not "protecting the products of the owners" and neither is denying others from using those patents.
Why do you think Apple gave IP to Digitude to use for IP enforcement and monetizing? I personally think Apple didn't want to look like the bad guy for suing over patents they themselves didn't even use, but the patents had value as weapons against competitors. An NPE leaves them relatively clean hands by someone else doing the dirty work.
Every NPE is in it to license IP arent't they? NPE's just lack any real products so are generally immune from counter-suits that might be leveled against product-producing companies like Apple, or Samsung ,or Sears, or General Electric. Because of that they can be much more aggressive and demanding than companies that practice what they patent. It's a really simple concept.
Why do you think Apple gave IP to Digitude to use for IP enforcement and monetizing? I personally think Apple didn't want to look like the bad guy for suing over patents they themselves didn't even use, but the patents had value as weapons against competitors. An NPE leaves them relatively clean hands by someone else doing the dirty work.
The members of the consortium handed over the control of their patents to Rockstar so that licensing of those patents can be done in a fair manner. That is what Rockstar meant when stated that they don't have to answer to any of their members when handing out licenses. If Apple or Microsoft had kept control of the patents, they might be tempted to ask for exhorbent licensing fees or deny a license, to a competitor wants to license some patents. But Rockstar, not having to answer to any of its members, could license those patents in a fair manner to anyone that wants to pay, regardless if its a major competitor (to any of its members).
That fact that Google reached an agreement with Rockstar for licensing some of the patents is proof that Rockstar licensing must be fair. Otherwise Google would just continue business as usaual and use the patents without paying. Google is not known for paying to use patents that they don't own. So the license fee must be pretty reasonable if Google is willing to pay for it. It doesn't sound like Apple (or Microsoft) is being the bad guy here. Or do you think that if Google has to pay anything at all, to use patents they don't own, someone is being a "bad guy"?
I never said it wasn't fair. Actually I think it's completely fair according to the legal rules in place. Rockstar is still by definition an NPE, which many here less politely call a patent troll when it's Apple being sued by one.
And you're correct that the licensing fee is almost certainly a relative pittance if both Cisco and especially Google were willing to pay rather than fight (thus the $188M guesstimate) Historically Google has been excellent at challenging patent claims against it, oft-times making that IP substantially worthless by successfully questioning its validity.
I thought the main reason the constituents of 'Rockstar' bought the Nortel patents - specifically, why Apple
paid the rumored $2.6 billion, was to make use of select patents without having to license them
for the hundreds of millions of devices they anticipated selling?
Did I get that wrong?
If that's not wrong, then the consortium members
are patent owners/users, not patent trolls.
That's not correct either. There are plenty of inventions in which the inventor didn't have the means to produce it, but was willing to license it. A patent troll neither uses it, nor allows anyone else to. Apple didn't use their data detection patent they got in 1996 until the iPhone.
From the linked article....
Last summer, Larry Ellison had re-affirmed his company’s take on this,
“When you write a program for the Android phone, you use the Oracle Java tools for everything.
And then at the very end, you press a button and say, ‘Convert this to Android format.’
Now I understand all those interoperability arguments,
and what could be more "fair use "[
They sit and wait for someone to sue.
That's not correct either. There are plenty of inventions in which the inventor didn't have the means to produce it, but was willing to license it. A patent troll neither uses it, nor allows anyone else to. Apple didn't use their data detection patent they got in 1996 until the iPhone.
False. The Data Detection software was used in the Newton and in MacOS at one point.
I think perhaps he meant the specific claim from the '647 patent asserted as infringed by Samsung isn't practiced by Apple themselves. I'd have to go back and look but Ii think that was determined to be the case.
Personally, I think the term "patent troll" is not a useful term, as evidenced by this discussion. One person's IP licensing company is another person's patent troll; the only difference is which on side of the courtroom you're sitting. If Google had done exactly what Apple and Co. did and formed Deathstar Consortium and sued Apple over some IP, most people here would be referring to Deathstar as a classic patent troll taking advantage of the bizarre legal climate of East Texas. But because Apple is one of the investors in Rockstar, it can't be considered a troll.
To me, the only offensive aspect of these IP licensing lawsuit stories is when a company sits on their patent for years--letting a company infringe on it without any notice--and then sues for astronomical damages. There should be a defense of "you knew that, in your opinion, we were infringing, but you did nothing about it, therefore--for some period of time--you were implicitly granting us permission." Then at least these companies wouldn't be playing a strategic game of "Gotcha!" rather than being upfront trying to negiotiate licensing terms. I expect that the majority of IP licensing firms don't play this game, but the ones who do tarnish the whole field (and give rise to stupid terms like patent troll).
No, Google was not invited to join the Rockstar group.
But Google was invited to join the group (composed mainly of Apple and Microsoft) when the Novell patents went up for sale. But they declined. If Google had join back then, they most likely would have been be part of the Rockstar consortium (composed mainly of Apple and Microsoft) when the Nortel patents went on sale. (But even then, Google might have still went off on their own to try to aquire the Nortel patents all for themselves.) Maybe Google didn't get the invite to join Rockstar (for the Nortel bidding) becasue Apple and Microsoft already had an idea how Google was going to respond.