7 ms·

I'm definitely splitting hairs here, but I think there's a distinction to be made between a non-practicing entity (patent troll) and a consortium of companies t

by jdechko 13y ago

I'm definitely splitting hairs here, but I think there's a distinction to be made between a non-practicing entity (patent troll) and a consortium of companies that pooled together to purchase patents. Rockstar may not make devices itself, but it consists of, and represents, companies that do. Just saying.

kelnos 13y ago
Perhaps, but I find the end result to be just as vile: a conglomeration of companies banding together to bully a weaker[1] rival. That sounds like anti-competitive behavior to me. [1] Weaker in relation to the combined power of the conglomeration, anyway.
- jdechko 13y ago
  Not that it makes it right, but does anyone think that Google wouldn't have used these patents offensively against the Rockstar companies if they had ended up with them?
  - kodablah 13y ago
    Yes, I believe that. Based on their past statements and actions I don't believe they would use them offensively. Do you believe they couldn't use the Motorola patent portfolio against those companies if they wanted to?
    - _Simon 13y ago
      Those past actions would be backing Motorola's abuse of FRAND patents to 'pre-emptively' attack competitors?
      - _Simon 13y ago
        Am I wrong?
    - bluekitten 13y ago
      >Do you believe they couldn't use the Motorola patent portfolio against those companies if they wanted to? Huh, haven't they been using them against Apple and MS? MS now pays them for H.264 patents, though considerably less than what demanded, and Motorola got convicted and fined by a jury for FRAND abuse. http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/09/05/judge-slaps-motorola-with-145m-payout-to-microsoft-for-frand-abuse http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/09/05/judge-slaps-motoro...
- iribe 13y ago
  The laws in the US are pretty clear on this subject. In general, as soon as you start colluding between companies, pooling resources, shaking hands and ganging up against one company, antitrust comes into play. Just look at what happened to Apple and publishers, standard oil, etc. Having said that, one of the parties involved in collusion was Microsoft. They covered their tracks well, as they have had more than a few run ins with the government here. You can see that in the, "Look, we asked them to join us, they chose not to do so" line.. Which was a laughable point by the way, as joining their group wouldn't have allowed for protecting android manufacturers. But it provides an alibi for regulators. IMO, it's not a very good alibi. Microsoft and Apple took a huge risk in their collusion. I imagine discovery might bring up some juicy tidbits. I figure they knew the risks, but reasoned that sticking it to their biggest 'problem' was worth the risk of getting caught up with regulators. So that tells you about how scared they are.
gillianseed 13y ago
They 'pooled together' to buy third party patents with which to try and attack a competitor's product as they can't compete against it on the virtue of their own products in the open market place. Technically you may be correct but I really think the 'troll' moniker is apt in this case.
- curiousDog 13y ago
  Why think of it that way? Perhaps they bought those patents for use in their own devices. Perhaps they've been paying Nortel to use them up until they bought them out.
  - salient 13y ago
    If you've been following the situation you'd know that isn't true. Rockstar was built for the whole purpose of suing Google. And use them "for themselves"? Rockstar is a little more than a shell company.
- clarky07 13y ago
  Right. Apple can't compete at all with android devices. Those same android devices that were originally copies of iPhones. Remember that android was just a better blackberry before iPhone came along.
  - coolnow 13y ago
    And remember where Apple got its notification centre from. And remember how iOS was lacking copy and paste for years. And remember how it only got "multitasking" a few years after Android did. We could be here forever. Also, didn't a Google employee basically debunk that "Google had to start from scratch after iPhone was revealed" claim?
    - _Simon 13y ago
      You have a warped sense of time. Multitasking is essentially fast app switching on the devices. Copy and paste was a nothing feature. I'm surprised that you left out MMS too since your going down the trite meme route. Here's some back to Android, although its blatantly been influenced by the direction Apple took, it took Google until Jellybean 4.2 to catch up with the quality of implementation of iOS. They also continue to have a problem with fragmentation that is getting worse by the year and Google fucked consumers by handing control back to carriers in a bit to gain market share. Like you said, this could go on and on. So here's an idea; instead of trotting out tired and trite memes because someone has had the temerity to call out your favourite team, don't. Also, link to the original article; http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/the-day-google-had-to-start-over-on-android/282479/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/the-da... If Android was, as you seem to think, not a copy of the original iPhone OS, why did it take a further 18 months to release anything after the initial iPhone unveiling?
richardw 13y ago
Rockstar was created specifically to avoid creating products which might infringe on others' patents, so it could subvert and cross licensing deals that exist. If Rockstar enjoys the benefits of being a separate legal entity, surely it should bear the disadvantages as well?
- richardw 13y ago
  In fact, Rockstar is basically Intellectual Ventures with different investors. Google seems to be an IV investor, I assume defensively. http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=2f9ac708-83af-42b9-9d3d-5fdf39fdc482 http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=2f9ac708-83af-4...
kirtijthorat 13y ago
I have been digging more on this and found the following interesting article by Forbes magazine titled "Why Google Needs To Take Rockstar's Complaint Seriously" Here is the link to this post: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rakeshsharma/2013/12/05/why-google-needs-to-take-rockstars-complaint-seriously/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/rakeshsharma/2013/12/05/why-goog... The article ends with a solid statement as: “It may be that they (Google) should have bid more (at the auction for Nortel’s patents) based on the realization that these patents were vital to their search business,” says Rappaport from IP Checkups
ChuckMcM 13y ago
Its not a hair split, consider MPEGLA, they don't make anything, they just provide a one stop shop for patent licenses. Or Public Key Partners. The list goes on. I agree with the Nortel Retirees that Google knew this was coming, they just decided it would cost less to defend than the $X billion dollars they would have had to bid to get the patents.
AnthonyMouse 13y ago
> Rockstar may not make devices itself, but it consists of, and represents, companies that do. Then tell us why they don't file the suits in their own names. It's clearly because they're doing something distasteful and don't want to get the stink on themselves, and because they don't want to be parties in a court case where the judge has the ability to rule against them once and for all or impose penalties.
- throwawaykf03 13y ago
  They didn't file these specific suits "in their own names" because these patents aren't owned by them but by Rockstar, a separate entity of which they are only shareholders and which apparently has committed to the DoJ and FTC to operate autonomously [1]. But they did file a bunch of other suits "in their own names". Both Apple and Microsoft are involved in litigation with other Android manufacturers in multiple jurisdictions, so it's not like they're unwilling to get their hands dirty. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6962488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6962488
  - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
    > They didn't file these specific suits "in their own names" because these patents aren't owned by them but by Rockstar, a separate entity of which they are only shareholders and which apparently has committed to the DoJ and FTC to operate autonomously That's the how, not the why. They had a choice to do it this way. And "operate autonomously" doesn't mean much when you first fill the subsidiary with nothing but litigators and patents that have already been licensed to everyone meaningful other than the parent's competitors. It's like setting loose a rabid animal near your competitor's business and then trying to disclaim responsibility because the animal was "operating autonomously." What did they expect to happen? > But they did file a bunch of other suits "in their own names". Both Apple and Microsoft are involved in litigation with other Android manufacturers in multiple jurisdictions, so it's not like they're unwilling to get their hands dirty. Lawsuits against Google's customers instead of Google. And that's part of the reason why Rockstar is dirty pool. Suppose Apple files a suit against an Android manufacturer, then a year into the litigation they show up and say "oh hi, we just bought some new patents, so let's throw out all the work we did getting to this point in the trial and start over." That clearly stinks of harassment, is going to make the judge unhappy, and may justly restrict what the plaintiffs are allowed to do with the new claims. By filing the litigation through Rockstar, they get a separate trial with two bites at the apple in front of two juries, the litigation costs more for the target because they have to defend two overlapping cases in different courts instead of having them consolidated, and they can do it again and again with different troll subsidiaries until their smaller competitors are destroyed.
DannyBee 13y ago
Rockstar is not a consortium. It's a separate entity. It does not "consist of other companies".
alan_cx 13y ago
Oh yeah. You just made it a conspiracy to patent troll. Nice one.
collyw 13y ago
Apple and Google apparently spent more on legal fees than R&D last year. http://gizmodo.com/5949909/apple-and-google-spent-more-money-on-legal-fees-than-rd-last-year-and-google-apparently-thinks-apple-wants-it-that-way http://gizmodo.com/5949909/apple-and-google-spent-more-money... Just sayin.
netcan 13y ago
>>there's a distinction to be made between a non-practicing entity (patent troll) and a consortium of companies that pooled together to purchase patents Its a semantic question. But my (soft) definition is a company that buys or registers patents, waits for them to be violated, then extracts licensing fees via legal threats or lawsuits. The non practicing pure trolls are just specialists.

by jdechko 13y ago

kelnos 13y ago

Perhaps, but I find the end result to be just as vile: a conglomeration of companies banding together to bully a weaker[1] rival. That sounds like anti-competitive behavior to me. [1] Weaker in relation to the combined power of the conglomeration, anyway.

jdechko 13y ago
Not that it makes it right, but does anyone think that Google wouldn't have used these patents offensively against the Rockstar companies if they had ended up with them?
- kodablah 13y ago
  Yes, I believe that. Based on their past statements and actions I don't believe they would use them offensively. Do you believe they couldn't use the Motorola patent portfolio against those companies if they wanted to?
  - _Simon 13y ago
    Those past actions would be backing Motorola's abuse of FRAND patents to 'pre-emptively' attack competitors?
    - _Simon 13y ago
      Am I wrong?
  - bluekitten 13y ago
    >Do you believe they couldn't use the Motorola patent portfolio against those companies if they wanted to? Huh, haven't they been using them against Apple and MS? MS now pays them for H.264 patents, though considerably less than what demanded, and Motorola got convicted and fined by a jury for FRAND abuse. http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/09/05/judge-slaps-motorola-with-145m-payout-to-microsoft-for-frand-abuse http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/09/05/judge-slaps-motoro...
iribe 13y ago
The laws in the US are pretty clear on this subject. In general, as soon as you start colluding between companies, pooling resources, shaking hands and ganging up against one company, antitrust comes into play. Just look at what happened to Apple and publishers, standard oil, etc. Having said that, one of the parties involved in collusion was Microsoft. They covered their tracks well, as they have had more than a few run ins with the government here. You can see that in the, "Look, we asked them to join us, they chose not to do so" line.. Which was a laughable point by the way, as joining their group wouldn't have allowed for protecting android manufacturers. But it provides an alibi for regulators. IMO, it's not a very good alibi. Microsoft and Apple took a huge risk in their collusion. I imagine discovery might bring up some juicy tidbits. I figure they knew the risks, but reasoned that sticking it to their biggest 'problem' was worth the risk of getting caught up with regulators. So that tells you about how scared they are.

gillianseed 13y ago

They 'pooled together' to buy third party patents with which to try and attack a competitor's product as they can't compete against it on the virtue of their own products in the open market place. Technically you may be correct but I really think the 'troll' moniker is apt in this case.

curiousDog 13y ago
Why think of it that way? Perhaps they bought those patents for use in their own devices. Perhaps they've been paying Nortel to use them up until they bought them out.
- salient 13y ago
  If you've been following the situation you'd know that isn't true. Rockstar was built for the whole purpose of suing Google. And use them "for themselves"? Rockstar is a little more than a shell company.
clarky07 13y ago
Right. Apple can't compete at all with android devices. Those same android devices that were originally copies of iPhones. Remember that android was just a better blackberry before iPhone came along.
- coolnow 13y ago
  And remember where Apple got its notification centre from. And remember how iOS was lacking copy and paste for years. And remember how it only got "multitasking" a few years after Android did. We could be here forever. Also, didn't a Google employee basically debunk that "Google had to start from scratch after iPhone was revealed" claim?
  - _Simon 13y ago
    You have a warped sense of time. Multitasking is essentially fast app switching on the devices. Copy and paste was a nothing feature. I'm surprised that you left out MMS too since your going down the trite meme route. Here's some back to Android, although its blatantly been influenced by the direction Apple took, it took Google until Jellybean 4.2 to catch up with the quality of implementation of iOS. They also continue to have a problem with fragmentation that is getting worse by the year and Google fucked consumers by handing control back to carriers in a bit to gain market share. Like you said, this could go on and on. So here's an idea; instead of trotting out tired and trite memes because someone has had the temerity to call out your favourite team, don't. Also, link to the original article; http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/the-day-google-had-to-start-over-on-android/282479/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/12/the-da... If Android was, as you seem to think, not a copy of the original iPhone OS, why did it take a further 18 months to release anything after the initial iPhone unveiling?

richardw 13y ago

Rockstar was created specifically to avoid creating products which might infringe on others' patents, so it could subvert and cross licensing deals that exist. If Rockstar enjoys the benefits of being a separate legal entity, surely it should bear the disadvantages as well?

richardw 13y ago
In fact, Rockstar is basically Intellectual Ventures with different investors. Google seems to be an IV investor, I assume defensively. http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=2f9ac708-83af-42b9-9d3d-5fdf39fdc482 http://m.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=2f9ac708-83af-4...

kirtijthorat 13y ago

I have been digging more on this and found the following interesting article by Forbes magazine titled "Why Google Needs To Take Rockstar's Complaint Seriously" Here is the link to this post: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rakeshsharma/2013/12/05/why-google-needs-to-take-rockstars-complaint-seriously/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/rakeshsharma/2013/12/05/why-goog... The article ends with a solid statement as: “It may be that they (Google) should have bid more (at the auction for Nortel’s patents) based on the realization that these patents were vital to their search business,” says Rappaport from IP Checkups

ChuckMcM 13y ago

Its not a hair split, consider MPEGLA, they don't make anything, they just provide a one stop shop for patent licenses. Or Public Key Partners. The list goes on. I agree with the Nortel Retirees that Google knew this was coming, they just decided it would cost less to defend than the $X billion dollars they would have had to bid to get the patents.

AnthonyMouse 13y ago

> Rockstar may not make devices itself, but it consists of, and represents, companies that do. Then tell us why they don't file the suits in their own names. It's clearly because they're doing something distasteful and don't want to get the stink on themselves, and because they don't want to be parties in a court case where the judge has the ability to rule against them once and for all or impose penalties.

throwawaykf03 13y ago
They didn't file these specific suits "in their own names" because these patents aren't owned by them but by Rockstar, a separate entity of which they are only shareholders and which apparently has committed to the DoJ and FTC to operate autonomously [1]. But they did file a bunch of other suits "in their own names". Both Apple and Microsoft are involved in litigation with other Android manufacturers in multiple jurisdictions, so it's not like they're unwilling to get their hands dirty. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6962488 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6962488
- AnthonyMouse 13y ago
  > They didn't file these specific suits "in their own names" because these patents aren't owned by them but by Rockstar, a separate entity of which they are only shareholders and which apparently has committed to the DoJ and FTC to operate autonomously That's the how, not the why. They had a choice to do it this way. And "operate autonomously" doesn't mean much when you first fill the subsidiary with nothing but litigators and patents that have already been licensed to everyone meaningful other than the parent's competitors. It's like setting loose a rabid animal near your competitor's business and then trying to disclaim responsibility because the animal was "operating autonomously." What did they expect to happen? > But they did file a bunch of other suits "in their own names". Both Apple and Microsoft are involved in litigation with other Android manufacturers in multiple jurisdictions, so it's not like they're unwilling to get their hands dirty. Lawsuits against Google's customers instead of Google. And that's part of the reason why Rockstar is dirty pool. Suppose Apple files a suit against an Android manufacturer, then a year into the litigation they show up and say "oh hi, we just bought some new patents, so let's throw out all the work we did getting to this point in the trial and start over." That clearly stinks of harassment, is going to make the judge unhappy, and may justly restrict what the plaintiffs are allowed to do with the new claims. By filing the litigation through Rockstar, they get a separate trial with two bites at the apple in front of two juries, the litigation costs more for the target because they have to defend two overlapping cases in different courts instead of having them consolidated, and they can do it again and again with different troll subsidiaries until their smaller competitors are destroyed.

DannyBee 13y ago

Rockstar is not a consortium. It's a separate entity. It does not "consist of other companies".

alan_cx 13y ago

Oh yeah. You just made it a conspiracy to patent troll. Nice one.

collyw 13y ago

Apple and Google apparently spent more on legal fees than R&D last year. http://gizmodo.com/5949909/apple-and-google-spent-more-money-on-legal-fees-than-rd-last-year-and-google-apparently-thinks-apple-wants-it-that-way http://gizmodo.com/5949909/apple-and-google-spent-more-money... Just sayin.

netcan 13y ago

>>there's a distinction to be made between a non-practicing entity (patent troll) and a consortium of companies that pooled together to purchase patents Its a semantic question. But my (soft) definition is a company that buys or registers patents, waits for them to be violated, then extracts licensing fees via legal threats or lawsuits. The non practicing pure trolls are just specialists.