Saying "Apple-backed" (or "Apple and Microsoft owned" as past articles have) insinuate that those companies are pulling the strings, which is not necessarily true. Straight from the horse's mouth [1]:
Given the amount they paid and given the on-going issues at least some of them have with both Google and the Android platform, many reports have talked about the consortium going on the attack or have assumed that it is the shareholders that have driven things. This is categorically not the case, Veschi says. “It was entirely my call based on the facts in front of me,” he states. “The shareholders got an email telling them what had happened after the suits were issued.”
You might not believe him, but it's not necessarily that unbelievable. For instance, Intellectual Ventures is, in a way, "Google-backed", since Google invested in one of their "funds" (or whatever they call it). Yet IV turned around and sued Motorola two years after Google acquired it.
It's clear that both Microsoft and Apple are pulling the strings. They didn't collectively spend $4.5 billion to just have Rockstar do whatever they want. (Not that creating a patent troll under any scenario is morally defensible for Microsoft or Apple).
The shell games provide them plausible deniability only to naive.
They sued Android. Android is a big threat to both Microsoft and Apple.
In case you didn't read the article I linked, the CEO of Rockstar created these licensing programs while they were still Nortel-owned and has been in negotiations for years before Rockstar was formed. This was a long time coming and all the potential infringers knew it, which was why the auction was in the billions of dollars.
They sued Android. Android is a big threat to both Microsoft and Apple.
Rockstar sued some Android phone makers because it infringes their patents and they don't have a license. Note that they didn't sue Sony, who makes Android phones, because Sony, being part of the consortium, has paid for those patents.
Given the amount they paid and given the on-going issues at least some of them have with both Google and the Android platform, many reports have talked about the consortium going on the attack or have assumed that it is the shareholders that have driven things. This is categorically not the case, Veschi says. “It was entirely my call based on the facts in front of me,” he states. “The shareholders got an email telling them what had happened after the suits were issued.”
You might not believe him, but it's not necessarily that unbelievable. For instance, Intellectual Ventures is, in a way, "Google-backed", since Google invested in one of their "funds" (or whatever they call it). Yet IV turned around and sued Motorola two years after Google acquired it.
1. http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=d258542c-dbfc...