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."
No it did not. But you are the only one in this thread saying anything about Apple being or not being a patent troll (except for Eric), The OP commented on NPE's in post 17 and you disagreed with him by interchanging NPE with patent troll as tho they were one and the same, something no one had even mentioned. Some tilting at windmills perhaps?
You've still yet to admit RC is in fact a non-practicing entity and put an end to this silly word play. Here's your chance.
No it did not. But you are the only one in this thread saying anything about Apple being or not being a patent troll (except for Eric), The OP commented on NPE's in post 17 and you disagreed with him by interchanging NPE with patent troll as tho they were one and the same, something no one had even mentioned. Some tilting at windmills perhaps?
You've still yet to admit RC is in fact a non-practicing entity and put an end to this silly word play. Here's your chance.
I defined patent troll and very clear stated that intent needs to be accounted more times than I can remember. How you repeatedly missed that is beyond me.
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.
If Motorola were like Rockstar and suing entities that were really infringing on their patents, then I can see how you could think Google is still the good guy here for not stopping those lawsuits. Even though Google don't have a history of suing for patent infringements. But it was obviously clear that Motorola was abusing their SEP patent agreements by asking for outrages licensing fee and then seeking import bans on products when Apple (and Microsoft) didn't comply. And Google did nothing to stop it when they could have. Motorola patents were already Google IP before these cases went to court. Google could have lived up to their motto of "Do No Evil". But I guess if someone else was doing the "evil" for them, that's OK with them and you.
I defined patent troll and very clear stated that intent needs to be accounted more times than I can remember. How you repeatedly missed that is beyond me.
LOL! You substituted patent troll yet again for NPE. At least you are consistent Soli.
Attorney: So you did in fact hit the blue truck at the intersection.
You: NO, I did not hit the red truck
LOL! You substituted patent troll yet again for NPE. At least you are consistent Soli.
Attorney: So you did in fact hit the blue truck at the intersection.
You: NO, I did not hit the red truck
No, no I'm not switching up the terms. I'm defining patent troll. You should be intelligent enough to read my definition and know that NPE isn't included in my definition of patent troll in and of itself. There is absolutely no reason to define NPE.
No, no I'm not switching up the terms. I'm defining patent troll. You should be intelligent enough to read my definition and know that NPE isn't included in my definition of patent troll in and of itself. There is absolutely no reason to define NPE.
Are you 2 still at it? This is turning into a Hatfield/McCoy type feud.
That is not the definition of a patent troll. The Rockstar consortium exists to protect the products of the owners. Your desire to rewrite the definition that force the Rockstar brand to be scribed on devices in order to not be a troll is simply ridiculous.
You are partially right: not having products is not sufficient to be labeled "patent troll".
But all patent trolls do not have products, and if a PE wants to start patent trolling, it is better to setup a NPE like Rockstar.
You are partially right: not having products is not sufficient to be labeled "patent troll".
But all patent trolls do not have products, and if a PE wants to start patent trolling, it is better to setup a NPE like Rockstar.
Which part am I partial right and with part partial wrong about because you repeated what I've been stating.
Comments
You've still yet to admit RC is in fact a non-practicing entity and put an end to this silly word play. Here's your chance.
I defined patent troll and very clear stated that intent needs to be accounted more times than I can remember. How you repeatedly missed that is beyond me.
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.
If Motorola were like Rockstar and suing entities that were really infringing on their patents, then I can see how you could think Google is still the good guy here for not stopping those lawsuits. Even though Google don't have a history of suing for patent infringements. But it was obviously clear that Motorola was abusing their SEP patent agreements by asking for outrages licensing fee and then seeking import bans on products when Apple (and Microsoft) didn't comply. And Google did nothing to stop it when they could have. Motorola patents were already Google IP before these cases went to court. Google could have lived up to their motto of "Do No Evil". But I guess if someone else was doing the "evil" for them, that's OK with them and you.
LOL! You substituted patent troll yet again for NPE. At least you are consistent Soli.
Attorney: So you did in fact hit the blue truck at the intersection.
You: NO, I did not hit the red truck
No, no I'm not switching up the terms. I'm defining patent troll. You should be intelligent enough to read my definition and know that NPE isn't included in my definition of patent troll in and of itself. There is absolutely no reason to define NPE.
Are you 2 still at it? This is turning into a Hatfield/McCoy type feud.
Are you 2 still at it? This is turning into a Hatfield/McCoy type feud.
I've never seen a simple question get dodged so many times. I'd have lost interest a long time ago.
You are partially right: not having products is not sufficient to be labeled "patent troll".
But all patent trolls do not have products, and if a PE wants to start patent trolling, it is better to setup a NPE like Rockstar.
Which part am I partial right and with part partial wrong about because you repeated what I've been stating.