| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the I4i article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This is not noteworthy
editi4i is just a patent troll company set to make money off obscure and unspecific/wide patent infringement lawsuits, for example i4i = an eye for an eye ,IMO this article should be deleted. It is also a stub on the epic level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.18.128.243 (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- This is noteworthy because it is a patent troll. It shows the idiocy of trivality patents. It is an epic stub, though.--Cyberman TM (talk) 06:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Keep: If the courts award them $290,000,000.00 from Microsoft then that is, IMO, sufficient notability to keep the article. What would be useful is some description of what it is that Microsoft breached. -- SGBailey (talk) 09:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- i4i has clearly become notable. PKT(alk) 14:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)