zlacker

> Microsoft et al have done with Rockstar

It is my understanding that Rockstar existed prior to Microsoft and others getting involved. They merely footed the bill.

>>pyre+(OP)
Pretty sure that's what I said. Is that supposed to absolve them?

>>pyre+(OP)
What was Rockstar's business before the patent purchase? Or was Rockstar a shelf company?

>>Anthon+22
Not really, but throwing in for something that already exists is slightly different than creating it in the first place.

>>Anthon+22
Well, yes. Before they bought it up, Rockstar was a menace to everybody. Even before Rockstar, Nortel was calling firms up for licenses, and everyone knew what was coming when the patents went on the auction block. By making the winning bid, MS, Apple et al successfully managed to reduce their own liability.

Now, in a fair competition, that should give them an advantage over others who failed to manage their risks. But the way everyone here behaves, people expect them to just let things lie, effectively footing the bill for the rest of the industry. How's that fair?

>>throwa+ry
> effectively footing the bill for the rest of the industry

Well, they (at least many of them -- e.g. Microsoft, Apple, etc) also 'play the game' with their own patents, so it's not out of character for them to use patents offensively. By using their patents offensively, they are contributing to the situation where they are required to 'foot the bill' with their own liabilities, at least. If they adopted a less aggressive stance, and instead put the money they've spent on lawyers towards lobbying for patent reform, what they 'need' to do to limit their liability might be really different.