 | 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 edit
This 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 edit
I 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 edit
Not 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)