Talk:Soverain Software

Reason for page undo and restoration of the longer version

The previous, shorter version was narrowly focused and contained inaccuracies. The present longer version contains a detailed history of the company, its predecessors, its products and litigation. Jlh070945 16:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, a few points.

• According to our rules, you mustn't undo a reversion for which a reasonable WP:BRD cause has been claimed. You have to make your case and have it accepted first. See WP:BRD (a guideline, albeit commonly followed) and WP:CONSENSUS (a policy). I've reverted your edit and you musn't replace them again without first gaining consensus. (If you do that would be violation of our rules and you'd be subject to sanctions.)
• OK, I have a question: what's your connection with the entity Soverain Software?
• Your short passage above doesn't convince me, sorry. While it may be true that you've added improvements, something has been lost also. Before looking further into it, I'd like to see the answer to the above question. I think that a main point that we want to get across is the entity is, as I understand it, a patent troll and we want to get the gist of that across to our readers. Patent trolling is perfectly legal and, if one highly values cleverness, perhaps nothing to be ashamed of. But whether or no, it seems an accurate description and a key description of who they are, and we want to get that across in the lede.

I think the question of "do they develop, sell, and support actual support actual software products or not" is a key question (not the only one -- where the bulk of their income comes from is also important) and one that ought to be answered fairly easily, so let's look at that first. Herostratus (talk) 19:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Response: Why the longer version of the company should be published.

1. The initial version was one-sided and contains numerous inaccuracies: (a) Soverain is an operating company, not a patent holding company; (b) Soverain’s software products DO embody the company’s patents and have done so since they were developed in the mid-1990’s; (3) The article mischaracterizes the patented technology which is accurately reflected in the patents’ claims; and (4) the Newegg suit was filed in 2007 and has nothing to do with the suits the entry lists, which were not filed in 2010 in any event. 2. The revised version expanded the chronology to correctly reflect the FACTS of the various litigations and reexaminations, and present a more detailed and balanced description of the company’s history. 3. The revised version cited to additional articles, which reflect the fact that there are differing points of view as to patents and patent litigation. 4. The revised version also provided links to more information about key terms/phases of the litigation/reexamination process, which were intended to explain and to educate readers who might not be knowledgeable about such details. 5. In answer to your final question: Soverain DOES develop, sell and support actual software products and has continued to operate the business that has done so since 1994. The fact that they are ALSO trying to license their intellectual property does not erase that fact, no matter how much companies like Newegg and commentators such as Ars Technica would like it to be otherwise. 6. If Wikipedia is striving for factual accuracy and to be a resource to readers wanting to learn more about a company/individual/subject, then the revised version accomplishes that.

In response to your question, Soverain Software is a client. However, all points in the longer article have been footnoted and attributed to third-party sources. There should be no argument about factual accuracy of the longer version.

Soverain is willing to move the "patent troll" paragraph up higher if that is acceptable to you. Jlh070945 22:05, 5 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlh070945 (talk • contribs)

OK. It's OK if Soverain is your client, that is not a deal-killer and thank you for being honest. It's likely that you'll get some (maybe most) of your desired material into the article. I can't look at this in more detail right now today, but either will soon or will get someone else to help. Herostratus (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you. I look forward to working with you on this. Please let me know what I need to do to fill out the article with the background in the longer version. Jlh070945 14:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlh070945 (talk • contribs)

It seems that I personally have a lot on my plate right now, but I've posted a request for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cooperation, and someone will probably be along shortly. I'm interested in the question "Does or does not Soverain actually develop, sell, and maintain software, or not." You say they do, Gizmodo says flat-out that they don't (and points to some legal documents as reference). This is something that ought to be fairly easy to sort out. It's true or its not. Herostratus (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Well dang. I posted a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cooperation but no response. I'd suggest you go over there yourself and poke around. If it was me, rather than posting there directly I'll read around a bit and figure out which editors might be amenable to helping you out as a subcontractor. Granted that means sharing the pie, but that's life I guess. (I'm not recommending this, just saying what I would do if I were you. It's your call.) Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Is their "software product" euphemism for patent licences?

Have they really developed software and sold it to 1,000 companies, or do they threaten people with their software patents and then refer to the out-of-court settlement as a sale of their software "product"? Gronky (talk) 12:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

POV tag

"Soverain Software has been characterized as a patent troll[2] by Newegg because it enforces its patent rights against other companies.[3]"

This sentence is clearly pro-sovereain, and the cite (3) is anti-newegg. Especially given that since this article was last updated Newegg has won in court and Soverain's patent has been invalidated.

I've purged it and added the new judgment against Soverain Lordkazan (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

They're dead, Jim -- I think

I think they're out of business. I tried calling their number and it's unallocated. This alone is basically positive proof that they're dead.

They do have a website, but it's not uncommon for dead companies to have a website -- they paid for hosting a couple years in advance or whatever. There's nothing on the website, except a box asking for for a username and password, not the usual thing on the website of a company that's open to the public for business. According the Wayback Machine, this replaced their old website (a normal full website describing their so-called "products" and listing their "clients") sometime in late 2015/early 2016.

Also, they lost all their cases I guess and all their patents were invalidated, and they don't make anything or do anything else, so I don't see how they could stay in business.

OTOH, I don't find anything about their demise, either. (here we've got their former head lawyer now working for someone else, but that doesn't prove anything.) They just disappeared. I guess they closed down quietly with no one really noticing or caring.

Based mainly on the lack of a working phone number, I'm placing them in the past tense. A ref for that would be great tho. Herostratus (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)