Perhaps the patents they are selling, the Rockstar companies get to keep a license for (no fees)?
If RPX wishes to license them elsewhere, they can but Apple, Sony, MS, et al. are free & clear to use them.
They may. Microsoft as both a paying member of RPX and original Rockstar investor certainly does. But in truth it doesn't matter as RPX wouldn't sue Apple for using a patent owned by them anyway. That's not what they do. No one has anything to fear from RPX-owned IP.
Maybe the ones they are keeping are worth > $3.6 billion.
Precisely. Also, it's possibly many of those patents will be expiring soon and the $900 million is a fair price for the remainder of their term.
Actually, this link states that "RPX will turn around and license the patents to a separate syndicate of about 30 other technology companies that include Google and Cisco Systems Inc."
Rest assured, if there are IP violations on their patent trove, RPX would be the ones filing the appropriate lawsuits.
Nope.
Read their pledge:
"We aggregate capital from annual subscription fees to acquire dangerous patents and patent rights, with each RPX client receiving a license to every asset we own. We acquire those patents for defensive purposes, and we have committed to never assert these patents"
RPX was not created as a PAE or Patent Assertion Entity, whereas Rockstar Consortium was. Taking these patents out of the Consortium's control is a good thing.
Rest assured, RPX won't be going after anyone using the IP they own.
EDIT: Here's a FAQ link. A few here are lazily commenting based on assumptions without bothering to do any background reading about who RPX is and what they do. http://www.rpxcorp.com/why-join-rpx/
Read their pledge:
"We aggregate capital from annual subscription fees to acquire dangerous patents and patent rights, with each RPX client receiving a license to every asset we own. We acquire those patents for defensive purposes, and we have committed to never assert these patents"
RPX was not created as a PAE or Patent Assertion Entity, whereas Rockstar Consortium was. Taking these patents out of the Consortium's control is a good thing.
Rest assured, RPX won't be going after anyone using the IP they own.
EDIT: Here's a FAQ link. A few here are lazily commenting based on assumptions without bothering to do any background reading about who RPX is and what they do. http://www.rpxcorp.com/why-join-rpx/
Here's a direct quote from that page:
"RPX provides a purely defensive service. Our goal is to acquire and clear high-risk patents so that NPEs cannot assert them against our clients."
They don't OFFENSIVELY assert their patents, but they certainly would DEFENSIVELY, otherwise the IP would be valueless.
"RPX provides a purely defensive service. Our goal is to acquire and clear high-risk patents so that NPEs cannot assert them against our clients."
They don't OFFENSIVELY assert their patents, but they certainly would DEFENSIVELY, otherwise the IP would be valueless.
How would one offensively assert their patent? Cease and desist letters warning you to not violate their patents at some future time? Isn't all so called patent litigation taking a defensive stance in the eyes of the law, even if some holding companies buy up patents simply so they can sue those that they feel have violated their patents?
PS: Doesn't think technically make RPX a patent troll as, like the Norwegian fairytale Three Billy Goats Gruff, a toll is desired only if-and-when that proverbial bridge is crossed? I wouldn't put them in the same category of other patent trolls we've seen but I still the definition fits for any NPE that is not specifically held by a PE.
How would one offensively assert their patent? Cease and desist letters warning you to not violate their patents at some future time? Isn't all so called patent litigation taking a defensive stance in the eyes of the law, even if some holding companies buy up patents simply so they can sue those that they feel have violated their patents?
PS: Doesn't think technically make RPX a patent troll as, like the Norwegian fairytale Three Billy Goats Gruff, a toll is desired only if-and-when that proverbial bridge is crossed? I wouldn't put them in the same category of other patent trolls we've seen but I still the definition fits for any NPE that is not specifically held by a PE.
Only if there is a story about a troll who buys candy from other trolls, puts it all in a big bowl, and lets anyone eat it for free.
"RPX provides a purely defensive service. Our goal is to acquire and clear high-risk patents so that NPEs cannot assert them against our clients."
They don't OFFENSIVELY assert their patents, but they certainly would DEFENSIVELY, otherwise the IP would be valueless.
They have never sued using any of their IP. They clearly and plainly claim never to assert any of their patents. Even doing so defensively would be asserting them. Again with the assumptions that the only value of a patent is to use it or sue someone else using it. You don't understand their business plan apparently. Read the FAQ's again (or for the first time).
So why would "free-riders" feel any need to become an RPX member rather than just using the IP unlicensed? Here's why.
Some number of the patents they offer their members are licensing only, where the ownership of the patent remains in the original owners hands but RPX and their members have a perpetual license to it, even if the member later decides not to renew or the original patent holder decides to sell the patent outright to someone else
In addition to that while RPX pledges never to sue anyone over their IP (offensively or defensively, doesn't matter) , they are not obliged to hold ownership forever. While current and former RPX members would always have use rights even if the patent(s) changed hands, any future owner of RPX IP would not be required to forgo monetizing it. I don't see any examples of that ever happening to date, but RPX absolutely has the right to sell assets if they wish.
They look (on paper) like the dumbest IP owners in the history of the patent system. I'd like to see their growth chart or stock history...are they even a for-profit business? Frankly they appear to be another consortium, but this time as a holder of far less valuable IP than Rockstar.
"RPX provides a purely defensive service. Our goal is to acquire and clear high-risk patents so that NPEs cannot assert them against our clients."
They don't OFFENSIVELY assert their patents, but they certainly would DEFENSIVELY, otherwise the IP would be valueless.
They have never sued using any of their IP. They clearly and plainly claim never to assert any of their patents. Even doing so defensively would be asserting them. Again with the assumptions that the only value of a patent is to use it or sue someone else using it. You don't understand their business plan apparently. Read the FAQ's again (or for the first time).
So why would "free-riders" feel any need to become an RPX member rather than just using the IP unlicensed? Here's why.
Some number of the patents they offer their members are licensing only, where the ownership of the patent remains in the original owners hands but RPX and their members have a perpetual license to it, even if the member later decides not to renew or the original patent holder decides to sell the patent outright to someone else
In addition to that while RPX pledges never to sue anyone over their IP (offensively or defensively, doesn't matter) , they are not obliged to hold ownership forever. While current and former RPX members would always have use rights even if the patent(s) changed hands, any future owner of RPX IP would not be required to forgo monetizing it. I don't see any examples of that ever happening to date, but RPX absolutely has the right to sell assets if they wish.
Interesting.
Having trawled through their site, it seems that RPX are wanting to establish themselves as an 'immovable' roadblock for practising entities, by using insurance services as mitigation protection.
"The RPX NPE patent litigation insurance premiums start at $7,500* for $1 million of coverage, which is issued by an A-rated Lloyd's of London underwriting syndicate. The policies cap exposure for policy-holding companies and ensure uninterrupted operations.
Additional features and benefits of this new insurance include:
Protection for small companies from the fear of unbounded risk and significant reduction in the disruptive effect on small companies of patent suits
Expert claims management reduces burden of selecting counsel and managing cases
Premiums typically start from $7,500 – $10,000*
Per claim retentions of $25K and co-pays as low as 10%
Access to RPX experts in patent risk, and dedicated claims management team
The insurance offering is administered by RPX Insurance Services LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of RPX Corporation and a Lloyd's coverholder. Binding Authority UMR Number: B0618FB14A605A; California License Number: 0H74909"
Which, as far as I can assertain, only offers protection against 'future' litigation costs for companies wishing to make products where there is an IP minefield to navigate on the way to marketing said product. Which is a good thing.
However, it does nothing to address the problem for individuals/small companies who find themselves at the mercy of larger IP abusers who routinely disregard less powerful entities with legitimate patents.
Also, promising 'never' to litigate, is easy when you pass on the risk to Lloyds, who, I can assure you, are quite willing to resort to the courts to retrieve 'their' costs.
Interesting.
Having trawled through their site, it seems that RPX are wanting to establish themselves as an 'immovable' roadblock for practising entities, by using insurance services as mitigation protection.
"The RPX NPE patent litigation insurance premiums start at $7,500* for $1 million of coverage, which is issued by an A-rated Lloyd's of London underwriting syndicate. The policies cap exposure for policy-holding companies and ensure uninterrupted operations.
Additional features and benefits of this new insurance include:
Protection for small companies from the fear of unbounded risk and significant reduction in the disruptive effect on small companies of patent suits
Expert claims management reduces burden of selecting counsel and managing cases
Premiums typically start from $7,500 – $10,000*
Per claim retentions of $25K and co-pays as low as 10%
Access to RPX experts in patent risk, and dedicated claims management team
The insurance offering is administered by RPX Insurance Services LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of RPX Corporation and a Lloyd's coverholder. Binding Authority UMR Number: B0618FB14A605A; California License Number: 0H74909"
Which, as far as I can assertain, only offers protection against 'future' litigation costs for companies wishing to make products where there is an IP minefield to navigate on the way to marketing said product. Which is a good thing.
However, it does nothing to address the problem for individuals/small companies who find themselves at the mercy of larger IP abusers who routinely disregard less powerful entities with legitimate patents.
Also, promising 'never' to litigate, is easy when you pass on the risk to Lloyds, who, I can assure you, are quite willing to resort to the courts to retrieve 'their' costs.
So...they're an insurance service protection racket.
So...they're an insurance service protection racket.
Oh well done for equating gangster style protection where they control both the insurance 'and' the retribution, with 'insurance' services in an area where RPX have no influence on litigation, nor do they themselves litigate. Not.
Which was the bigger waste of money, Rockstar or Beats?
I think the Rockstar arrangement actually worked out for Apple. According to the WSJ (emphasis mine): "The Rockstar companies squeezed more than three years of use out of the 4,000 patents, and will keep licenses going forward. The 2,000 patents they held back from Rockstar—and aren’t part of the sale to RPX—were among some of the most valuable in the Nortel portfolio."
Aggregating all these patents and doing nothing with them helps society how?
Parents benefit individuals and companies while they are valid, which is for a limited amount of time. After they expire they are available for anyone to use. That's the deal one makes when one participates in the patent system.
Comments
The irony is almost too much!
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I’d steal your intellectual property to make a point about how stupid you are for supporting these actions, but, well, you’ve never created any.
Maybe the ones they are keeping are worth > $3.6 billion.
Precisely. Also, it's possibly many of those patents will be expiring soon and the $900 million is a fair price for the remainder of their term.
Actually, this link states that "RPX will turn around and license the patents to a separate syndicate of about 30 other technology companies that include Google and Cisco Systems Inc."
Including thieves who choose to blatantly steal and use RPX owned IP in their products?
Including thieves who choose to blatantly steal and use RPX owned IP in their products?
Rest assured, if there are IP violations on their patent trove, RPX would be the ones filing the appropriate lawsuits.
Read their pledge:
"We aggregate capital from annual subscription fees to acquire dangerous patents and patent rights, with each RPX client receiving a license to every asset we own. We acquire those patents for defensive purposes, and we have committed to never assert these patents"
RPX was not created as a PAE or Patent Assertion Entity, whereas Rockstar Consortium was. Taking these patents out of the Consortium's control is a good thing.
Rest assured, RPX won't be going after anyone using the IP they own.
EDIT: Here's a FAQ link. A few here are lazily commenting based on assumptions without bothering to do any background reading about who RPX is and what they do.
http://www.rpxcorp.com/why-join-rpx/
Here's a direct quote from that page:
"RPX provides a purely defensive service. Our goal is to acquire and clear high-risk patents so that NPEs cannot assert them against our clients."
They don't OFFENSIVELY assert their patents, but they certainly would DEFENSIVELY, otherwise the IP would be valueless.
How would one offensively assert their patent? Cease and desist letters warning you to not violate their patents at some future time? Isn't all so called patent litigation taking a defensive stance in the eyes of the law, even if some holding companies buy up patents simply so they can sue those that they feel have violated their patents?
PS: Doesn't think technically make RPX a patent troll as, like the Norwegian fairytale Three Billy Goats Gruff, a toll is desired only if-and-when that proverbial bridge is crossed? I wouldn't put them in the same category of other patent trolls we've seen but I still the definition fits for any NPE that is not specifically held by a PE.
Only if there is a story about a troll who buys candy from other trolls, puts it all in a big bowl, and lets anyone eat it for free.
They have never sued using any of their IP. They clearly and plainly claim never to assert any of their patents. Even doing so defensively would be asserting them. Again with the assumptions that the only value of a patent is to use it or sue someone else using it. You don't understand their business plan apparently. Read the FAQ's again (or for the first time).
So why would "free-riders" feel any need to become an RPX member rather than just using the IP unlicensed? Here's why.
Some number of the patents they offer their members are licensing only, where the ownership of the patent remains in the original owners hands but RPX and their members have a perpetual license to it, even if the member later decides not to renew or the original patent holder decides to sell the patent outright to someone else
In addition to that while RPX pledges never to sue anyone over their IP (offensively or defensively, doesn't matter) , they are not obliged to hold ownership forever. While current and former RPX members would always have use rights even if the patent(s) changed hands, any future owner of RPX IP would not be required to forgo monetizing it. I don't see any examples of that ever happening to date, but RPX absolutely has the right to sell assets if they wish.
Interesting.
Having trawled through their site, it seems that RPX are wanting to establish themselves as an 'immovable' roadblock for practising entities, by using insurance services as mitigation protection.
"The RPX NPE patent litigation insurance premiums start at $7,500* for $1 million of coverage, which is issued by an A-rated Lloyd's of London underwriting syndicate. The policies cap exposure for policy-holding companies and ensure uninterrupted operations.
Additional features and benefits of this new insurance include:
Protection for small companies from the fear of unbounded risk and significant reduction in the disruptive effect on small companies of patent suits
Expert claims management reduces burden of selecting counsel and managing cases
Premiums typically start from $7,500 – $10,000*
Per claim retentions of $25K and co-pays as low as 10%
Access to RPX experts in patent risk, and dedicated claims management team
The insurance offering is administered by RPX Insurance Services LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of RPX Corporation and a Lloyd's coverholder. Binding Authority UMR Number: B0618FB14A605A; California License Number: 0H74909"
Which, as far as I can assertain, only offers protection against 'future' litigation costs for companies wishing to make products where there is an IP minefield to navigate on the way to marketing said product. Which is a good thing.
However, it does nothing to address the problem for individuals/small companies who find themselves at the mercy of larger IP abusers who routinely disregard less powerful entities with legitimate patents.
Also, promising 'never' to litigate, is easy when you pass on the risk to Lloyds, who, I can assure you, are quite willing to resort to the courts to retrieve 'their' costs.
So...they're an insurance service protection racket.
Oh well done for equating gangster style protection where they control both the insurance 'and' the retribution, with 'insurance' services in an area where RPX have no influence on litigation, nor do they themselves litigate. Not.
Which was the bigger waste of money, Rockstar or Beats?
Which was the bigger waste of money, Rockstar or Beats?
I think the Rockstar arrangement actually worked out for Apple. According to the WSJ (emphasis mine): "The Rockstar companies squeezed more than three years of use out of the 4,000 patents, and will keep licenses going forward. The 2,000 patents they held back from Rockstar—and aren’t part of the sale to RPX—were among some of the most valuable in the Nortel portfolio."
Why do you think nothing is being done with any of them, or is that not what your point was meant to be?
Parents benefit individuals and companies while they are valid, which is for a limited amount of time. After they expire they are available for anyone to use. That's the deal one makes when one participates in the patent system.