Apple-backed patent consortium sues Google, major Android manufacturers

1246789

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 166

    More lawsuits! yay

  • Reply 62 of 166

    Here's an idea: lets see what the industry is calling it.

     

    http://www.nasdaq.com/article/google-and-android-partners-sued-by-apple-and-microsoftled-patent-troll-cm295046

     

    Case Closed. 

  • Reply 63 of 166
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ScottWilson View Post

     

     

     

    Apple is a proven patent troll right now. Read the story. What does the title of this story say:

     

    "Apple-backed patent consortium sues Google, major Android manufacturers"   <--- Apple is now a patent troll. Period. End of discussion. That is the definition of being one. 


     

    Only according to you and your definition of a patent troll. Which is wrong, as are your conclusions.

     

    Rockstar is owned by 5 companies. This is the only legitimate way for a group of companies to collectively own a set of patents. Other options are far too messy (like giving some patents to each company and having them all sign complicated cross-licensing agreements between them). This would also require a significant effort to even accomplish as how do you decide what each patent is worth and who gets it? Further, if a patent is used to get license fees, how are they divided up (does Apple collect for its portion of patents and then distribute any monies they get to the others, or does it go into some separate joint account and distributed later).

     

    You are a troll. Period. End of discussion. Welcome to the block list (as I hope others will do until you fade away and disappear like all the other losers before you).

  • Reply 64 of 166
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,340member
    quinney wrote: »
    The glass house owners decided that throwing more stones would be unwise?

    That could certainly be one reason. After all they had a fairly long history of asserting IP in courtrooms. Look how many times they sued over their search patents to shut down newcomers and lesser competitors. Oh wait. . .
  • Reply 65 of 166

    That gentleman in the picture is truly my Rockstar Hero! ;)

     

    Keep up the good work, folks.

  • Reply 66 of 166

    I don't think Google took this issue seriously until it was too late (who can forget their infamous pi $billion bid?).  Yes, they entered the bidding for the Nortel patents, but to at least some extent, I think they were simply trying to bid the price up and make the acquisition as expensive as possible for their competitors.  Also keep in mind that Google was INVITED to join the Rockstar consortium and they refused. 

     

    Losing out on the Nortel patents directly led to them overpaying for a money pit in Motorola Mobility.  Yes, Motorola included a treasure trove of patents, but the most valuable ones had already been released into patent pools on FRAND licensing terms, which limits their value in litigation relative to other patents that are not part of industry standards.  The Nortel patents that Rockstar has wielded in this lawsuit do not fall under FRAND, which makes them potentially more dangerous to a defendant. 

     

    I knew about the telecom patents in the Nortel collection, but I didn't know that those patents also included search-linked advertising.  To me, that's the real story because Google's entire business model is built around the cash flow that search ads generate.  Android and Chrome are worthless to Google without the advertising tie-ins, as are Gmail and all of their other "free" services.  Any search ad-related patent decision would cut to the core of about 90% of Google's revenues.   Because of this, it just seems shocking to me that Google wouldn't have done everything in their power to acquire the Nortel patents.  Did they not do the due diligence on what Nortel's patents contained?  Or are they betting on the courts invalidating those particular patents?  Should be interesting to see how things unfold.

  • Reply 67 of 166
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,340member
    Only according to you and your definition of a patent troll. Which is wrong, as are your conclusions.

    Rockstar is owned by 5 companies. This is the only legitimate way for a group of companies to collectively own a set of patents. Other options are far too messy (like giving some patents to each company and having them all sign complicated cross-licensing agreements between them). This would also require a significant effort to even accomplish as how do you decide what each patent is worth and who gets it? Further, if a patent is used to get license fees, how are they divided up (does Apple collect for its portion of patents and then distribute any monies they get to the others, or does it go into some separate joint account and distributed later).

    Approx. 2000 of the original patent trove were reportedly "messily handled" like that, divided up among the players.

    "RE: Rockstar Consortium and the testing of the privateer patent monetisation model
    Out of the 2000 patents best patents in wireless domain will be transferred to Apple. At the time of auction it was reported that Apple will get Nortel 4G and LTE assets as it is the biggest contributor to the group. (http://www.tangible-ip.com/2011/nortel-post-mortem.htm). Recently ownership of many standard declared patents on ETSI website has been changed from Nortel to Apple. (Example patent family http://ipr.etsi.org/PatentHistory.aspx?Ptid=507).

    About 225 US patents were transferred to RIM (second biggest contributor) (http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat&asnrd=ROCKSTAR BIDCO, LP).

    EMC was supposed to get ownership of data storage related patents and Ericsson (lowest contributor) was supposed to get only license to all the portfolio. If we assume Ericsson’s contribution ($340mn) as base for license to the portfolio, patents should be distributed as below.

    Contribution For acquisition Patents

    Apple $2000mn $1660mn 1340

    MSFT & Sony $1000mn $320mn 260

    RIM $770mn $430mn 350

    EMC $400mn $60mn 50

    Ericsson $340mn $0mn 0

    Assuming Microsoft and Sony need to contribute ($680mn) for license and EMC also took license to the porfolio( which is highly unlikely). Also assuming all 2000 patents are of equal value."
  • Reply 68 of 166
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,340member
    woochifer wrote: »
    I don't think Google took this issue seriously until it was too late (who can forget their infamous pi $billion bid?).  Yes, they entered the bidding for the Nortel patents, but to at least some extent, I think they were simply trying to bid the price up and make the acquisition as expensive as possible for their competitors.  Also keep in mind that Google was INVITED to join the Rockstar consortium and they refused. 

    I've seen that claim posted as tho factual a couple of times now. Truly curious if you're aware of any substantiating source for that of if it's just something you heard around here? I'm not aware of any reliable claim that Google was invited to join the Rockstar group and turned it down, but maybe so.
  • Reply 69 of 166
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ScottWilson View Post

     

     

     

    Apple is a proven patent troll right now. Read the story. What does the title of this story say:

     

    "Apple-backed patent consortium sues Google, major Android manufacturers"   <--- Apple is now a patent troll. Period. End of discussion. That is the definition of being one. 




    Oh geez.  Just go back to CNET where your brand of vapid trolling might find a more receptive audience. 

  • Reply 70 of 166
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

     

    You are a troll. Period. End of discussion. Welcome to the block list (as I hope others will do until you fade away and disappear like all the other losers before you).


     

     

    Great idea! Just block people with differing opinions. That way when you read the comments you exclusively get the warm fuzzies.

  • Reply 71 of 166
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ScottWilson View Post

     

     

    Oh, there's no confusion. It's the exact same thing. Apple got together with Microsoft and bought Nortel's patent portfolio, then set up a Patent Holding Company to Patent Troll Google. That's exactly what happened. They are using patents they don't even use for anything, or any product they make to sue a competitor because they can't compete any other way. They are patent trolls by every definition, which makes them slime.

     

    DEAL WITH IT


     

    You have a funny sense of morality. Rockstar (and its product-producing owners) are silme? No, slime is Samsung and Motorola (google?) trying to extort money from Apple for standard essential patents. They are slime.

     

    DEAL WITH IT lol

  • Reply 72 of 166
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    I've seen that claim posted as tho factual a couple of times now. Truly curious if you're aware of any substantiating source for that of if it's just something you heard around here? I'm not aware of any reliable claim that Google was invited to join the Rockstar group and turned it down, but maybe so.

    The word came directly from Microsoft's general counsel and their head of communications.

     

    http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/08/03/microsoft.says.google.could.have.joined.patent.bid/

  • Reply 73 of 166
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MauiJoe View Post



    So now people are calling apple a patent troll? I thought that term was reserved for the companies that sue even tho they have no product or intention of ever making one?

    I agree with your definition.

  • Reply 74 of 166
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,340member
    woochifer wrote: »
    The word came directly from Microsoft's general counsel and their head of communications.

    http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/08/03/microsoft.says.google.could.have.joined.patent.bid/

    Ah, figured you were confused and it's understandable. MS was speaking about Novell, not Nortel Yeah they sound a whole lot alike and both sold a package of patents. But Novell (your link) had nothing to do with Rockstar Bidco and Nortel patents.
  • Reply 75 of 166
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

     

    That image caption… Wait, really? I love it.


     

    Yes.

     

    http://www.wired.com/wiredenterprise/2012/05/rockstar/

  • Reply 76 of 166
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ScottWilson View Post

     

    Here's an idea: lets see what the industry is calling it.

     

    http://www.nasdaq.com/article/google-and-android-partners-sued-by-apple-and-microsoftled-patent-troll-cm295046

     

    Case Closed. 


     

    Boy, are you ignorant. That article comes from Vincent Trivett, from the site Minyanville. He's not in "the industry", genius. He's a writer.

     

    Also, Trivett is confusing this series of patents with the previously asserted patents that were essentially about "look and feel".

     

    These new patents cover the very core of Google's business. If I was Larry Page or Sergey Brin, I'd need a change of diapers right about now.

  • Reply 77 of 166
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    gatorguy wrote: »
    quinney wrote: »
    The glass house owners decided that throwing more stones would be unwise?

    That could certainly be one reason.

    It is good you can admit it.

    gatorguy wrote: »
    After all they had a fairly long history of asserting IP in courtrooms. Look how many times they sued over their search patents to shut down newcomers and lesser competitors. Oh wait. . .

    Good attempt at obfuscation, but not as good as your goldfish riff.
  • Reply 78 of 166
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,503member
    Oh, there's no confusion. It's the exact same thing. Apple got together with Microsoft and bought Nortel's patent portfolio, then set up a Patent Holding Company to Patent Troll Google. That's exactly what happened. They are using patents they don't even use for anything, or any product they make to sue a competitor because they can't compete any other way. They are patent trolls by every definition, which makes them slime. 

    DEAL WITH IT
    Really, Microsoft does not run a search engine and Apple does not sell ads? Neither one has a product that could benefit from the patent that they currently are litigating for? I think you need to look again. :\
  • Reply 79 of 166
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,340member
    [quote name="quinney" url="/t/160534/apple-backed-patent-consortium-sues-google-major-android-manufacturers/40#post_2429018"
    Good attempt at obfuscation, but not as good as your goldfish riff.[/quote]

    lol. :D
  • Reply 80 of 166
    neo42neo42 Posts: 287member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NoahJ View Post





    Really, Microsoft does not run a search engine and Apple does not sell ads? Neither one has a product that could benefit from the patent that they currently are litigating for? I think you need to look again. image

     

    Google provided both of these services long before the others.  I guess buying up patents to damage a company that's been doing it for many years is all good and well?  I suppose legally it is just fine, but it's pretty lousy ethically speaking.  Of course that's just IMHO and being a 'fandroid troll' or whatever makes my opinion worth zero.

Sign In or Register to comment.