 | This article was nominated for deletion on 31 July 2014. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
 | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
December 2009 reboot
editThis article was pretty spammy in its previous incarnations but I've given it a fresh start here. Feedback welcomed, of course. A Traintalk 18:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Patent Troll
editI believe someone needs to explain why they remove the patent troll part and the Ars Technica reference. Also, their relation to Vringo, Inc.82.77.106.135 (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
References
editNot a patent troll?
http://www.businessinsider.com/vringo-patent-lawsuit-2012-11?op=1
http://venturebeat.com/2014/01/29/google-ordered-to-pay-as-much-as-1-billion-to-patent-troll-vringo/
http://www.valuewalk.com/2014/01/google-inc-goog-forced-to-pay-patent-troll-vringo-up-to-1b/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.12.179.96 (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- We can note that a number of commentators describe it as a patent troll. Not all do, and the title is clearly a POV-laden pejorative. Among others, Reuters does not use the epithet: [1]. The term is properly noted in the lede of the article, but is not directly applied. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- You're still pretty clueless, and your modifications are bad. Reuters is another category, of course. See also what I wrote here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston#Vringo 5.12.179.96 (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- Welp, you're not going to gain consensus by calling me "clueless." Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
- You're still pretty clueless, and your modifications are bad. Reuters is another category, of course. See also what I wrote here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EdJohnston#Vringo 5.12.179.96 (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)