Unlike you, I am of the opinion that the Motorola SEP trials were plain and simple extortion, and I dont buy your opinion that Google just had to play out what MM started
Unlike you, I am of the opinion that the Motorola SEP trials were plain and simple extortion, and I dont buy your opinion that Google just had to play out what MM started
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.
You confused Nortel with Novell. Search for yourself. You'll be more secure with the answer.
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.
\OK so you don't want to discuss NPE's and whether RC is one.
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.
Did you just reply to your own comment? You're taking this whole solipsism thing a little too serious now.
It's owners are practicing. Trying to remove them from the consortium to support your argument is just shitty.
It may be shitty as far as focusing the discussion but you still refuse to say whether RC or MOSAID is an NPE. No biggie as I'm nearly certain what your answer would be if you gave a straight one.
It may be shitty as far as focusing the discussion but you still refuse to say whether RC or MOSAID is an NPE. No biggie as I'm nearly certain what your answer would be if you gave a straight one.
I've already said that if the owners of a consortium are using the patents they own they are not trolls. I'm not going to let you pull into a fallacial argument where you claim that RC is an NPE and here is a troll. You know it's bullshit which is why you've isolated the owners from the argument.
I've already said that if the owners of a consortium are using the patents they own they are not trolls. I'm not going to let you pull into a fallacial argument where you claim that RC is an NPE and here is a troll. You know it's bullshit which is why you've isolated the owners from the argument.
Still with the NPE=Patent troll meme, one I don't ascribe to but you apparently do. Never mind then, the discussion is going in circles. Anyway, any comment on post 67?
Still with the NPE=Patent troll meme, one I don't ascribe to but you apparently do. Never mind then, the discussion is going in circles. Anyway, any comment on post 67?
I have no idea what running cables has to do with the overall intent of patebt holders. Again, Rockstar is not a troll until their intent was to control patents they had no intent of using so they could wait for others to "cross their bridge" so they charge them excessive fees. A troll, prohibits progress, they don't protect it.
I have no idea what running cables has to do with the overall intent of patebt holders. Again, Rockstar is not a troll until their intent was to control patents they had no intent of using so they could wait for others to "cross their bridge" so they charge them excessive fees. A troll, prohibits progress, they don't protect it.
Wait.... You did say this didn't you:
"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"
I think I just showed you two, both of which Rockstar is using in IP lawsuits. So there 'ya go. By your account RC=patent troll then.
Wait.... You did say this didn't you:
"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"
I think I just showed you two.
Think again. If there the owners spend billions per year in R&D you have no idea what their intent is. Now compare to an actual patent troll that has a staff of 3 people, not including their teams of lawyers, that have no R&D.
I've always considered you more honest than you appear to be at the moment. This is going nowhere so as we were.
That's exactly what I was thinking with your subjective and conveneint answers. I made very clear broad answes that envelope all entities but you was to focus on Rockstar without any consideration for their owners by calling them an NPE and therefore a patent troll. That's just sleazy as ****.
That's exactly what I was thinking with your subjective and conveneint answers. I made very clear broad answes that envelope all entities but you was to focus on Rockstar without any consideration for their owners by calling them an NPE and there a patent troll. That's just sleazy as ****.
NPE does not equal patent troll IMO. For you it does, so your aversion to considering an Apple-associated property to be an NPE is noted and understood. Rockstar is simply a company lacking any physical products, but among their investors are companies with real products just as with other large Patent Privateers like MOSAID. Better?
NPE does not equal patent troll IMO. For you it does, so your aversion to considering an Apple-associated property to be an NPE is noted and understood. Rockstar is simply a company lacking any physical products, but among their investors are companies with real products just as with other large Patent Privateers like MOSAID. Better?
I clearly stated that NPE doesn't equate to patent troll.
I clearly stated that NPE doesn't equate to patent troll.
You've equated troll and NPE in every post I read as far as I can tell. Your exact words:
"by calling them an NPE and therefore a patent troll." Sure looks lie NPE=troll according to you, and clearly NOT stated that there is a difference.
I've never called Rockstar Consortium a patent troll yet in most of your replies to use the term when replying to me. I get it. Let's both go read and/or discuss something else.
You've equated troll and NPE in every post I read as far as I can tell. Your exact words:
"by calling them an NPE and therefore a patent troll." Sure looks lie NPE=troll according to you, and clearly NOT stated that there is a difference.
I've never called Rockstar Consortium a patent troll yet in most of your replies to use the term when replying to me. I get it. Let's both go read and/or discuss something else.
Read the whole sentence. That's not me calling them a patent troll. That's me defending against the term applied to a company with proper intent.
Read the whole sentence. That's not me calling them a patent troll. That's me defending against the term applied to a company with proper intent.
The whole sentence where you claim I'm calling them a patent troll? That one supposedly defending them from my comments? ? cough:bull:cough
So then we can agree that RC is an NPE but not a patent troll. Dang, that was worse than pulling teeth and I can vouch for that from recent experience.
Dang, that was worse than pulling teeth and I can vouch for teat from recent experience.
It took you until NOW to figure out despite this comment early on: "If the owners of Rockstar are protecting patents they use then they are not a troll."
Comments
Unlike you, I am of the opinion that the Motorola SEP trials were plain and simple extortion, and I dont buy your opinion that Google just had to play out what MM started
Oh, okay the maybe and might's argument.
You confused Nortel with Novell. Search for yourself. You'll be more secure with the answer.
\OK so you don't want to discuss NPE's and whether RC is one.
It's owners are practicing. Trying to remove them from the consortium to support your argument is just shitty.
Did you just reply to your own comment? You're taking this whole solipsism thing a little too serious now.
MOSAID's owners are practicing too.
Anyway, which one of the Consortium's owners is building out a cable system?
http://www.google.com/patents/US5471474
And which one is setting up analog telephones for customers on their cable systems?
http://www.google.com/patents/US6130893
It may be shitty as far as focusing the discussion but you still refuse to say whether RC or MOSAID is an NPE. No biggie as I'm nearly certain what your answer would be if you gave a straight one.
I've already said that if the owners of a consortium are using the patents they own they are not trolls. I'm not going to let you pull into a fallacial argument where you claim that RC is an NPE and here is a troll. You know it's bullshit which is why you've isolated the owners from the argument.
Still with the NPE=Patent troll meme, one I don't ascribe to but you apparently do. Never mind then, the discussion is going in circles. Anyway, any comment on post 67?
I have no idea what running cables has to do with the overall intent of patebt holders. Again, Rockstar is not a troll until their intent was to control patents they had no intent of using so they could wait for others to "cross their bridge" so they charge them excessive fees. A troll, prohibits progress, they don't protect it.
Wait.... You did say this didn't you:
"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"
I think I just showed you two, both of which Rockstar is using in IP lawsuits. So there 'ya go. By your account RC=patent troll then.
Think again. If there the owners spend billions per year in R&D you have no idea what their intent is. Now compare to an actual patent troll that has a staff of 3 people, not including their teams of lawyers, that have no R&D.
That's exactly what I was thinking with your subjective and conveneint answers. I made very clear broad answes that envelope all entities but you was to focus on Rockstar without any consideration for their owners by calling them an NPE and therefore a patent troll. That's just sleazy as ****.
NPE does not equal patent troll IMO. For you it does, so your aversion to considering an Apple-associated property to be an NPE is noted and understood. Rockstar is simply a company lacking any physical products, but among their investors are companies with real products just as with other large Patent Privateers like MOSAID. Better?
I clearly stated that NPE doesn't equate to patent troll.
You've equated troll and NPE in every post I read as far as I can tell. Your exact words:
"by calling them an NPE and therefore a patent troll." Sure looks lie NPE=troll according to you, and clearly NOT stated that there is a difference.
I've never called Rockstar Consortium a patent troll yet in most of your replies to use the term when replying to me. I get it. Let's both go read and/or discuss something else.
Read the whole sentence. That's not me calling them a patent troll. That's me defending against the term applied to a company with proper intent.
So then we can agree that RC is an NPE but not a patent troll. Dang, that was worse than pulling teeth and I can vouch for that from recent experience.
It took you until NOW to figure out despite this comment early on: "If the owners of Rockstar are protecting patents they use then they are not a troll."