This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
i4i is just a patent troll company set to make money off obscure and unspecific/wide patent infringement lawsuits, for example i4i = an eye for an eye ,IMO this article should be deleted. It is also a stub on the epic level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.128.243 (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
This is noteworthy because it is a patent troll. It shows the idiocy of trivality patents. It is an epic stub, though.--Cyberman TM (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Keep: If the courts award them $290,000,000.00 from Microsoft then that is, IMO, sufficient notability to keep the article. What would be useful is some description of what it is that Microsoft breached. -- SGBailey (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
i4i has clearly become notable. PKT(alk) 14:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
