3 ms·

What is the exact nature of Lodsys's relationship to IV? I have done a lot of research on trolls and IV and I am not aware of any connection at all. Basic assig

What is the exact nature of Lodsys's relationship to IV? I have done a lot of research on trolls and IV and I am not aware of any connection at all. Basic assignments aren't enough to claim IV's involvement.

throwawaykf02 13y ago
Agreed. I suspect there's no significant relationship at all. As another comment mentions, Lodsys used to have this page on their website, now only found on archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20110618140937/http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-what-is-dan-abelows-involvement-is-intellectual-ventures-behind-lodsys-or-controlling-lodsys-in-some-way.html http://web.archive.org/web/20110618140937/http://www.lodsys.... As an aside, the FTC is considering a special investigation "piercing the corporate veil" to ferret out the real entities behind trolling operations. If they do, I look forward to seeing their findings. My hunch is that they won't find the usual suspects behind them, if they find any at all.
- gruseom 13y ago
  A couple questions (I have no knowledge on this): 1. Wouldn't your hunch have been equally applicable to Oasis? Yet we now know that IV was behind them. 2. If your hunch were correct, wouldn't it be in both Lodsys' and IV's interests to unequivocally establish the facts?
  - throwawaykf02 13y ago
    Sorry for the late response, very infrequent logger-in: 1. No, we really don't know IV was behind Oasis. I am guessing you assume this because NPR reported IV gets 90% of profits. But note how they did not prove or even outright state there was any controlling interest; they just throw the 90% number out there and imply it, Glen Beck-style. The original inventor also made millions off Oasis, but can you say he was "behind" Oasis too? Unless there's a clear indication of control (which shell companies make very hard to prove) it is just as likely a "share-cropping" operation as a shell company. Something like the FTC probe is needed to prove anything either way. 2. IV has publicly stated at an FTC panel that (paraphrasing) they do not sue under any name than their own. Now, that's not under oath, mind you, but making such statements in front of a government panel holds some weight. However, I do find it a bit odd that Lodsys put that denial on their website and then removed it.

throwawaykf02 13y ago

Agreed. I suspect there's no significant relationship at all. As another comment mentions, Lodsys used to have this page on their website, now only found on archive.org: http://web.archive.org/web/20110618140937/http://www.lodsys.com/1/post/2011/05/q-what-is-dan-abelows-involvement-is-intellectual-ventures-behind-lodsys-or-controlling-lodsys-in-some-way.html http://web.archive.org/web/20110618140937/http://www.lodsys.... As an aside, the FTC is considering a special investigation "piercing the corporate veil" to ferret out the real entities behind trolling operations. If they do, I look forward to seeing their findings. My hunch is that they won't find the usual suspects behind them, if they find any at all.

gruseom 13y ago
A couple questions (I have no knowledge on this): 1. Wouldn't your hunch have been equally applicable to Oasis? Yet we now know that IV was behind them. 2. If your hunch were correct, wouldn't it be in both Lodsys' and IV's interests to unequivocally establish the facts?
- throwawaykf02 13y ago
  Sorry for the late response, very infrequent logger-in: 1. No, we really don't know IV was behind Oasis. I am guessing you assume this because NPR reported IV gets 90% of profits. But note how they did not prove or even outright state there was any controlling interest; they just throw the 90% number out there and imply it, Glen Beck-style. The original inventor also made millions off Oasis, but can you say he was "behind" Oasis too? Unless there's a clear indication of control (which shell companies make very hard to prove) it is just as likely a "share-cropping" operation as a shell company. Something like the FTC probe is needed to prove anything either way. 2. IV has publicly stated at an FTC panel that (paraphrasing) they do not sue under any name than their own. Now, that's not under oath, mind you, but making such statements in front of a government panel holds some weight. However, I do find it a bit odd that Lodsys put that denial on their website and then removed it.