Talk:InterDigital

NPOV Check

I've tagged this article to be checked for NPOV as it reads much like a PR piece/first-party corporate profile. I will review it at another time and attempt a cleanup, but if others are able to take a look, that makes the job a lot easier. Calvinhrn (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, sounds like a marketing piece 24.114.208.202 (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The reason it looks like marketing is that it is almost verbatim from the company's website history page http://www.interdigital.com/about_interdigital/category/history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.220.106.2 (talk) 19:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made some changes to make it more "objective" but there is still a lot of work to do, I'll try to continue it a little bit during next days. MoodZy (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Mass rollback

I've done a mass rollback of edits to a version from 20 months ago due to a WP:SPA blanking out huge portions for no listed reason. Also, the article in the meantime was sounding more like a soapbox and a pure PR fluffery POS piece. If someone can re-integrate the good edits back into the article that would be a welcome move. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Some changes are forthcoming, and we'll be sure to make all changes even-toned, factual and referenced. I don't object to anyone referencing and linking to accusations of patent trolling (like all patent licensing companies we get accused of that) but some of the current text is simply mischaracterizations. For example: "InterDigital... don't actually go out and let others use their technology in their products, but instead look for products with overlapping capabilities and sue for patent fee" is purely false and pretty poorly written. We contribute patents to mobile standards, same as Nokia, Qualcomm, Ericsson, etc.

Vandewille (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

References