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"?
Since Rockstar operates independently and in its own interest, imagine a scenario where Google approaches them to offer an outrageous amount of money to actually BUY patents from the consortium's portfolio, rather than license. Such a thing should theoretically be possible!
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.
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 Intellectual Ventures latest IP package buy, I think for the first time.
I see zero chance Google would have bought into the Rockstar Consortium plan to sue others. That's more up Microsoft's alley.
Since Rockstar operates independently and in its own interest, imagine a scenario where Google approaches them to offer an outrageous amount of money to actually BUY patents from the consortium's portfolio, rather than license. Such a thing should theoretically be possible!
For the love of God, Rockster is NOT a Patent Troll.
Going after companies that infringe your IP does not make you a patent troll. Being a NPE also does not make you a patent troll.
Trying to collect money using unscrupulous techniques is what makes you a troll. Sending bogus demand letters or filing lawsuits without providing enough details about infringement are perfect examples. These are all discussed in the recent patent reform bill.
Sorry, haters, but YOU are the ones trying to change the definition of a patent troll to encompass one single criteria - being a NPE - just so you can find a reason to bash Rockstar, and indirectly, Apple and MS.
Good on Google for finally paying up. They steal so much IP it's about time they started to pay.
Awesome. Rockstar aka big f-#king Patent Troll wins in patent troll heaven aka Eastern District Court of Texas. It is disgusting that an entity like Rockstar even exists. They are a leech on the US patent system.
Joined in Nov. 2014 just to troll us eh?
I think you might have thought this was an Android site.
For the love of God, Rockster is NOT a Patent Troll.
Going after companies that infringe your IP does not make you a patent troll. Being a NPE also does not make you a patent troll.
Trying to collect money using unscrupulous techniques is what makes you a troll. Sending bogus demand letters or filing lawsuits without providing enough details about infringement are perfect examples. These are all discussed in the recent patent reform bill.
Sorry, haters, but YOU are the ones trying to change the definition of a patent troll to encompass one single criteria - being a NPE - just so you can find a reason to bash Rockstar, and indirectly, Apple and MS.
Good on Google for finally paying up. They steal so much IP it's about time they started to pay.
I don't think you're reading this thread correctly. Some of the posters are saying "what Rockstar is doing is just fine because they aren't a patent troll," some (like myself and Gatorguy) are saying "what Rockstar is doing is just fine because they are just doing what IP licensing firms do," and a minority are saying "anyone that sues over patents is bad." So I don't know who you're referring to when you say "Sorry, haters, but YOU are the ones trying to change the definition of a patent troll to encompass one single criteria - being a NPE - just so you can find a reason to bash Rockstar, and indirectly, Apple and MS." (Gatorguy, I apologize if I mischaracterized your position; obviously you're free to correct me.)
I don't think you're reading this thread correctly. Some of the posters are saying "what Rockstar is doing is just fine because they aren't a patent troll," some (like myself and Gatorguy) are saying "what Rockstar is doing is just fine because they are just doing what IP licensing firms do," and a minority are saying "anyone that sues over patents is bad." So I don't know who you're referring to when you say "Sorry, haters, but YOU are the ones trying to change the definition of a patent troll to encompass one single criteria - being a NPE - just so you can find a reason to bash Rockstar, and indirectly, Apple and MS." (Gatorguy, I apologize if I mischaracterized your position; obviously you're free to correct me.)
My comment reflects on this article in conjunction with countless previous posts about Rockstar that posters have made. This topic has been discussed in great detail this past year. A LOT of posters on AI think Rockstar is a patent troll.
My comment reflects on this article in conjunction with countless previous posts about Rockstar that posters have made. This topic has been discussed in great detail this past year. A LOT of posters on AI think Rockstar is a patent troll.
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.
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.
Are you saying the owners of Rockstar in no way utilize those Nortel patents they own and are instead simple holding the patents to sue others?
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 Intellectual Ventures latest IP package buy, I think for the first time.
I see zero chance Google would have bought into the Rockstar Consortium plan to sue others. That's more up Microsoft's alley.
But Google had no problem with going along with Motorola trying to illegally monetize on SEP patents with lawsuits, after they bought them out. Unless you want to go along with your unicorn and dragon theory that Google had nothing to do with it because Motorola was already planning that before they were bought out.
But Google had no problem with going along with Motorola trying to illegally monetize on SEP patents with lawsuits, after they bought them out. Unless you want to go along with your unicorn and dragon theory that Google had nothing to do with it because Motorola was already planning that before they were bought out.
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.
Are you saying the owners of Rockstar in no way utilize those Nortel patents they own and are instead simple holding the patents to sue others?
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 generally immune to counter-suits over anyone else's IP. They are often better able to force a desired outcome than the companies that previously controlled the IP. They can exert pressure a practicing company might find hard to get away with.
That's why some use the pejorative "patent troll" in discussing them. They aren't well liked.
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.
If the owners of Rockstar are protecting patents they use then they are not a troll, just as, say, Motorola wouldn't be a troll if they had held patents used by Google and were suing others for violating their IP.
If the owners of Rockstar are protecting patents they use then they are not a troll, just as, say, Motorola wouldn't be a troll if they had held patents used by Google and were suing others for violating their IP.
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 they're a "patent troll"?
If the owners of Rockstar are protecting patents they use then they are not a troll, just as, say, Motorola wouldn't be a troll if they had held patents used by Google and were suing others for violating their IP.
Is Blackberry currently utilizing their pager patents? If not, would you consider them a troll? I wouldn't. I think it all comes down to intent.
Rockstar was clearly formed so that multiple entities could use a large assortment of patents, not simply to hold onto waiting people others to cross that proverbial bridge so they can attack.
Ask yourself: If Google had smartly joined the consortium and Apple had not, but Apple was caught utilizing the patents, would you call Google a troll for protecting their IP? I don't think you would, but I also believe others here would change their pro-Apple position from Rockstar is not a troll to one that is.
Ask yourself: If Google had smartly joined the consortium and Apple had not, but Apple was caught utilizing the patents, would you call Google a troll for protecting their IP? I don't think you would, but I also believe others here would change their pro-Apple position from Rockstar is not a troll to one that is.
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.
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 because they wanted to make a separate bid for the patents and own everything themselves. They lost the bid and now they are paying the price for being greedy.
Quite right, I believe that Google "Do no evil", wanted to buy these patents to make them available for free to the best of mankind. No way in the world they wanted to buy them to do what they do best: Extortion.
Quite right, I believe that Google "Do no evil", wanted to buy these patents to make them available for free to the best of mankind. No way in the world they wanted to buy them to do what they do best: Extortion.
Extortion. . . LOL. I'd ask for an example of their IP extortion but you don't have one. :rolleyes:
No, Google was not invited to join the Rockstar group.
I remember it was reported in the press that Google was invited. Obviously this dos not make it the truth, but can you please provide some backing for this.
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.
What's to answer? I already stated it's foolish to separate the companies from the consortium in an attempt to redefine the term patent troll that is convenient for the argument.
If you can find me just one patent that Rockstar is suing over that you can show had no intention of using for an actual product I'll agree that they are patent trolls.
Comments
Since Rockstar operates independently and in its own interest, imagine a scenario where Google approaches them to offer an outrageous amount of money to actually BUY patents from the consortium's portfolio, rather than license. Such a thing should theoretically be possible!
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 Intellectual Ventures latest IP package buy, I think for the first time.
I see zero chance Google would have bought into the Rockstar Consortium plan to sue others. That's more up Microsoft's alley.
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
For the love of God, Rockster is NOT a Patent Troll.
Going after companies that infringe your IP does not make you a patent troll. Being a NPE also does not make you a patent troll.
Trying to collect money using unscrupulous techniques is what makes you a troll. Sending bogus demand letters or filing lawsuits without providing enough details about infringement are perfect examples. These are all discussed in the recent patent reform bill.
Sorry, haters, but YOU are the ones trying to change the definition of a patent troll to encompass one single criteria - being a NPE - just so you can find a reason to bash Rockstar, and indirectly, Apple and MS.
Good on Google for finally paying up. They steal so much IP it's about time they started to pay.
Awesome. Rockstar aka big f-#king Patent Troll wins in patent troll heaven aka Eastern District Court of Texas. It is disgusting that an entity like Rockstar even exists. They are a leech on the US patent system.
Joined in Nov. 2014 just to troll us eh?
I think you might have thought this was an Android site.
For the love of God, Rockster is NOT a Patent Troll.
Going after companies that infringe your IP does not make you a patent troll. Being a NPE also does not make you a patent troll.
Trying to collect money using unscrupulous techniques is what makes you a troll. Sending bogus demand letters or filing lawsuits without providing enough details about infringement are perfect examples. These are all discussed in the recent patent reform bill.
Sorry, haters, but YOU are the ones trying to change the definition of a patent troll to encompass one single criteria - being a NPE - just so you can find a reason to bash Rockstar, and indirectly, Apple and MS.
Good on Google for finally paying up. They steal so much IP it's about time they started to pay.
I don't think you're reading this thread correctly. Some of the posters are saying "what Rockstar is doing is just fine because they aren't a patent troll," some (like myself and Gatorguy) are saying "what Rockstar is doing is just fine because they are just doing what IP licensing firms do," and a minority are saying "anyone that sues over patents is bad." So I don't know who you're referring to when you say "Sorry, haters, but YOU are the ones trying to change the definition of a patent troll to encompass one single criteria - being a NPE - just so you can find a reason to bash Rockstar, and indirectly, Apple and MS." (Gatorguy, I apologize if I mischaracterized your position; obviously you're free to correct me.)
I don't think you're reading this thread correctly. Some of the posters are saying "what Rockstar is doing is just fine because they aren't a patent troll," some (like myself and Gatorguy) are saying "what Rockstar is doing is just fine because they are just doing what IP licensing firms do," and a minority are saying "anyone that sues over patents is bad." So I don't know who you're referring to when you say "Sorry, haters, but YOU are the ones trying to change the definition of a patent troll to encompass one single criteria - being a NPE - just so you can find a reason to bash Rockstar, and indirectly, Apple and MS." (Gatorguy, I apologize if I mischaracterized your position; obviously you're free to correct me.)
My comment reflects on this article in conjunction with countless previous posts about Rockstar that posters have made. This topic has been discussed in great detail this past year. A LOT of posters on AI think Rockstar is a patent troll.
Are you saying the owners of Rockstar in no way utilize those Nortel patents they own and are instead simple holding the patents to sue others?
But Google had no problem with going along with Motorola trying to illegally monetize on SEP patents with lawsuits, after they bought them out. Unless you want to go along with your unicorn and dragon theory that Google had nothing to do with it because Motorola was already planning that before they were bought out.
That's why some use the pejorative "patent troll" in discussing them. They aren't well liked.
If the owners of Rockstar are protecting patents they use then they are not a troll, just as, say, Motorola wouldn't be a troll if they had held patents used by Google and were suing others for violating their IP.
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 they're a "patent troll"?
Is Blackberry currently utilizing their pager patents? If not, would you consider them a troll? I wouldn't. I think it all comes down to intent.
Rockstar was clearly formed so that multiple entities could use a large assortment of patents, not simply to hold onto waiting people others to cross that proverbial bridge so they can attack.
Ask yourself: If Google had smartly joined the consortium and Apple had not, but Apple was caught utilizing the patents, would you call Google a troll for protecting their IP? I don't think you would, but I also believe others here would change their pro-Apple position from Rockstar is not a troll to one that is.
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.
Quote:
You have it backwards.
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 because they wanted to make a separate bid for the patents and own everything themselves. They lost the bid and now they are paying the price for being greedy.
Quite right, I believe that Google "Do no evil", wanted to buy these patents to make them available for free to the best of mankind. No way in the world they wanted to buy them to do what they do best: Extortion.
Extortion. . . LOL. I'd ask for an example of their IP extortion but you don't have one. :rolleyes:
No, Google was not invited to join the Rockstar group.
I remember it was reported in the press that Google was invited. Obviously this dos not make it the truth, but can you please provide some backing for this.
What's to answer? I already stated it's foolish to separate the companies from the consortium in an attempt to redefine the term patent troll that is convenient for the argument.
If you can find me just one patent that Rockstar is suing over that you can show had no intention of using for an actual product I'll agree that they are patent trolls.