FTC chairwoman Edith Ramirez is set to follow up on the White House's executive actions and...

FTC chairwoman Edith Ramirez is set to follow up on the White House's executive actions and legislative proposals against patent trolls by asking the commission to sign off on a major investigation of their behavior: The investigation will result in subpoenas being sent to targeted companies, and require that they answer questions about whether they coordinate lawsuits with other IP holders and compensate original patent owners. Companies that could be targeted: ACTG, WILN, VHC, VRNG, RPXC.

Comments (10)
  • Crosstrain
    , contributor
    Comments (8) | Send Message
    VRNG is already in compliance with the proposed regs
    20 Jun 2013, 12:35 PM Reply Like
  • Patent Plays
    , contributor
    Comments (978) | Send Message
    Another non-starter from the White House. Anything to pull the spotlight off the NSA, IRS, Libya and now the CIA (TWA 800).
    20 Jun 2013, 12:44 PM Reply Like
  • User 8331091
    , contributor
    Comments (128) | Send Message
    "companies that could be targeted..."


    Any company that asserts patents 'could' be targeted by the FTC. The fact that a Canadian company (WILN) and a defensive aggregator (RPXC) were added to the list of potential targets makes me think this list was compiled by someone (or a machine) who doesn't understand the patent litigation sector at all.


    SAIC's involvement with VHC, and the fact that VHC is practicing its inventions, makes it unlikely to be a target as well.
    20 Jun 2013, 01:00 PM Reply Like
  • imac007
    , contributor
    Comments (742) | Send Message
    I agree. Wilan is a perfect example of a legitimate intellectual property company. They are doing extensive next generation wireless research through their subsidiary Cygnus Broadband.


    Samsung just signed a long term renewal of Wilan's portfolio of wireless patents.


    They filed a simple Bluetooth suit against a handful of players like Apple, Dell and HP. Dell has settled by licensing a portfolio, too. The Bluetooth suit was just to get their attention. Want a stock with coming catalysts, this is it. I suspect they may want to talk to Apple about their 1500 or so television patents. They also own patents for everything wireless, 3G, 4G LTE, wifi, plus wired ethernet, CDMA, Bluetooth plus DSL and cable connectivity.


    Even suggesting them as patent trolls destroys his credibility.
    21 Jun 2013, 01:02 AM Reply Like
  • marpha
    , contributor
    Comments (562) | Send Message
    The risk here is an FTC referral to the Justice Department relative to antitrust violations. For example, for all the grapenuts out there who think there is a secret pact between VRNG and MSFT, if one existed, this investigation would not be a good thing ultimately, as, well, one can imagine several grounds for antitrust violations if it were true. Another example is the NOK patent purchase and some of the provisions of that agreement.
    20 Jun 2013, 02:22 PM Reply Like
  • Ed12367
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message


    How is a profit sharing agreement between Nokia and VRNG 'anti trust' . Please stop making arbitrary statements, here on ST as well without backing it up. We can all make up ideas to support our short positions, having valid info is another issue completely
    20 Jun 2013, 04:56 PM Reply Like
  • marpha
    , contributor
    Comments (562) | Send Message
    Make up ideas? Holy cow. Clearly, (a) you are not a lawyer, and (b) if by a stretch you are, you are not very creative or broadly experienced.


    I can imagine several antitrust grounds in the NOK-VRNG agreement. How about market division or horizontal restraint for starters? Doesn't the agreement allow VRNG to sue some market participants and not others? And, oddly, NOK financially participates in that on a profit-sharing basis. If NOK approached enforcement of standards essential patents on that basis on it's own, we wouldn't know about it. But, heck, there it is in the agreement.


    The basic fact is, the FTC, at the behest of the Obama administration is seeking to use anti-trust law to go after trolls. I have said it before that VRNG risks being "too smart by half" in how they are going about things.


    See the following for ideas:






    24 Jun 2013, 01:07 PM Reply Like
  • marpha
    , contributor
    Comments (562) | Send Message
    Also, here c/o Groklaw (otherwise known as SA for lawyers...):




    Have fun...
    24 Jun 2013, 02:09 PM Reply Like
  • Erik Giles
    , contributor
    Comments (153) | Send Message
    I have to say something here:


    1) It's Lang's patent, not Google's.
    2) The patent was found valid and found infringed, by a jury
    3) Google's revenue skyrocketed after Lang's patents were infringed
    4) Google went from $100 a share to $700 a share within a couple of years of using Lang's patents
    5) Google is the patent troll, not Lang.
    20 Jun 2013, 08:10 PM Reply Like
  • imac007
    , contributor
    Comments (742) | Send Message
    I call Google a patent Ogre. At least the patent trolls pick a legal route.


    Apple introduced the idea of apps connecting users to web sites and data directly, bypassing the search engine.


    Google saw the writing on the wall. They bought Android and gave it away.


    Of course it was full of patent infringements, but the fragmentation of infringement made it a nightmare to litigate.


    Google provides a few updates to establish access to the users and their activity. Easy to bypass a search engine but hard to get away from your OS. Intentional illegal activity and no flag. Samsung was just as flagrant.


    The system is broken. Non-expert judges clog the system and they blame the claimants.


    Half of visits to ER's are for drug reactions, but blame the mom who takes her kid with the earache, after hours, for clogging that system.
    Blame the victim. Deflect the blame from where it belongs.


    Fix the problem.
    The judges are patent experts instead of industry experts. So they call industry experts as witnesses but its impossible to give the judge enough of the right kind of expertise to make fair decisions.


    They need to turn it on its head. Industry experts to hear the cases and then consult with patent experts about legal remedies.


    Some industries use expert regulators, why not all?
    21 Jun 2013, 01:44 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Screener: Search and filter by asset class, strategy, theme, performance, yield, and much more
ETF Performance: View ETF performance across key asset classes and investing themes
ETF Investing Guide: Learn how to build and manage a well-diversified, low cost ETF portfolio
ETF Selector: An explanation of how to select and use ETFs