throwawaykf03

Reddit comment from the author of this change discussing the reasons behind it:

http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1qw73v/til_orac...

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

Actually, Google was not offered to join the Rockstar consortium. They were offered to participate in a joint bid on the Novell portfolio (which they declined), but not -- as far as we know -- the Nortel portfolio.

I think the confusion arose when Google complained about multiple firms ganging up to win the Nortel auction, and Microsoft shot back that they'd have invited Google into the gang too if it hadn't snubbed them during the Novell auction. All PR posturing on both sides, of course, but prone to sow confusion.

If the Rockstar shareholders can be shown to have direct control over this, the DoJ and FTC may get involved. From this interview/fluff piece: http://www.ip-rockstar.com/Press_Releases/IAM%20Rockstar%20A...

Commitments to the DoJ

The sale of the Nortel patents closed on 29th July 2011, which also happens to be Veschi’s birthday. But it took another few months – until Spring 2012 – for the acquisition to receive clearance from the US Department of Justice (DoJ). Although this approval may have taken some time to obtain, the only commitment that Rockstar itself gave to the DoJ (and the Federal Trade Commission) was that it would operate autonomously. This, explains Veschi, was so that the shareholders “as operating companies cannot pick and choose who we will target”

"Forking" does not necessarily mean "innovation". Innovation, by definition, requires something new. "Doing the same things differently" is only innovative to the extent that things are done differently. (Android certainly did do some innovative things, just saying that forking the kernel was probably not it.)

In case you didn't read the article I linked, the CEO of Rockstar created these licensing programs while they were still Nortel-owned and has been in negotiations for years before Rockstar was formed. This was a long time coming and all the potential infringers knew it, which was why the auction was in the billions of dollars.

They sued Android. Android is a big threat to both Microsoft and Apple.

Rockstar sued some Android phone makers because it infringes their patents and they don't have a license. Note that they didn't sue Sony, who makes Android phones, because Sony, being part of the consortium, has paid for those patents.

Posted this link [1] in another comment, but apparently Nortel was in licensing negotiations for years before Rockstar was formed, and its CEO claims the current owners had no say in filing these lawsuits.

1. http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=d258542c-dbfc...

No, because as the claims state, the bread is heated at a temperature between 2500 F. and 4500 F. Toasters generally operate at much, much lower temperatures -- around 300 F. In case this seems like a minor distinction, consider that toasting bread at 2500 - 4500 F does not give you toast :-)

"A toaster works by applying radiant heat directly to a bread slice. When the bread's surface temperature reaches about 310 degrees Farenheit, a chemical change known as the Maillard reaction begins. Sugars and starches start to caramelize - turn brown - and to take on intense flavors.

"That's toast.

"With more heating, the sugars and underlying grain fibers start turning into carbon.

"That's burnt toast."

- Quote from a Consumer Reports test on toasters, June 1990 (found at http://www.toaster.org/works.html)

I'm not sure what this patent gives you -- heck, maybe it does refresh stale bread -- but it certainly won't give you toast.

Saying "Apple-backed" (or "Apple and Microsoft owned" as past articles have) insinuate that those companies are pulling the strings, which is not necessarily true. Straight from the horse's mouth [1]:

Given the amount they paid and given the on-going issues at least some of them have with both Google and the Android platform, many reports have talked about the consortium going on the attack or have assumed that it is the shareholders that have driven things. This is categorically not the case, Veschi says. “It was entirely my call based on the facts in front of me,” he states. “The shareholders got an email telling them what had happened after the suits were issued.”

You might not believe him, but it's not necessarily that unbelievable. For instance, Intellectual Ventures is, in a way, "Google-backed", since Google invested in one of their "funds" (or whatever they call it). Yet IV turned around and sued Motorola two years after Google acquired it.

1. http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=d258542c-dbfc...

Hah, M-CAM. Anytime an article quotes these guys, I know it's going to have some low quality reporting about patents. (And, yes, this includes the "When Patents Attack" episode [1] on "This American Life", where the very same M-CAM dude claimed there was a "patent on toast".)

I looked through every patent on online backups that M-CAM said "covered the exact same thing" in that episode [1], and found each one to claim something entirely different. Whatever their method of analysis is, it was completely useless then.

I also looked through the first few of the "just 70" out of the 5160 matches M-CAM found in this article, and found nothing really similar to Bobo's patent (or indeed, each other). Sure, there may be some really damaging prior art out there. I just highly doubt M-CAM found it.

But don't take my word for it, others have called these out as well [2, 3].

That said, if Huster can show that she indeed was an inventor, this patent is trivially invalid because she is not named on it. This is the same thing that killed the IV patent in "When Patents Attack Part 2" [4].

1. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/t... 2. http://gametimeip.com/2012/04/13/q-why-was-mdb-capital-right... 3. http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=c5c2c5b5-ecf9... 4. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/496/t...