Sleazy, scumbag Apple, $200B in liquid cash, not enough, so they rip-off university

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

nospam equates this
with being a patent troll.

they usually are.

What is it within the class of npe organisations which distinguishes a
patent-troll from a patent-not-troll?

basically, a company whose business model is to acquire patents and
sue, versus actually inventing stuff and advancing technology.

First of all, most of the alleged patent troll nuisance suits are over
design patents and not utility patents. Design patents don't do
anything to advance technology, and would not be considered to be an
"invention".

source?

Do what you tell other people to do: look it up. Most *patent* suits
are about utility patents, but that doesn't mean that most suits
brought by NPEs are about utility patents.

backpedaling so fast??

you made a statement, you get to support it.

and even if true, it's irrelevant.

You question if is true? I'm not going to research all of the suits
filed by Apple and Samsung,

this isn't about apple and samsung. changing the story so fast?

but Apple initially filed four suits over
*design* patents covering the basic shape of the iPhone. They filed
suits regarding similarity in packaging and icons. These are design
patent subjects, not utility patent subjects.

samsung admitted they copied the iphone. that's why they lost.

samsung copies everyone, including blackberry, motorola and others.

The Apple/Samsung suits are not examples of NPE suits, but they
address the point that design patent suits do not retard technology
advancements and are not about inventions.

i didn't say apple/samsung suits were npe suits.

Apple, by the way, has every right to defend their design patents.
I've brought this up just to expose your ignorance, not to contest
Apple's legal rights.

you've only demonstrated your own ignorance.

On 10/21/15 PDT 1:43 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:55:55 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 10/20/15 PDT 9:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:31:07 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 10/19/15 PDT 2:29 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

What is it within the class of npe organisations which distinguishes a
patent-troll from a patent-not-troll?

Actions.

Please explain.

It seems too obvious to me! Sorry.

Does that mean you have no logical basis for the distinction which you
can explain?

No.

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:16:28 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Now I would like to know the difference between a good npe and a bad
npe. Can you help?

the first question to ask is if it's a mail drop with no employees,
possibly one which is located in east texas.

That's by no means conclusive but it would certainly make me curious.

Now, what about an npe with a large staff and an easily identifiable
office?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:16:00 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 10/21/15 PDT 1:43 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:55:55 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 10/20/15 PDT 9:24 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2015 16:31:07 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote:

On 10/19/15 PDT 2:29 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

What is it within the class of npe organisations which distinguishes a
patent-troll from a patent-not-troll?

Actions.

Please explain.

It seems too obvious to me! Sorry.

Does that mean you have no logical basis for the distinction which you
can explain?

No.

Does it mean that you won't explain what you mean?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Now I would like to know the difference between a good npe and a bad
npe. Can you help?

the first question to ask is if it's a mail drop with no employees,
possibly one which is located in east texas.

That's by no means conclusive

yes it is

but it would certainly make me curious.

about what?

Now, what about an npe with a large staff and an easily identifiable
office?

that depends on what the staff does. are they all attorneys looking for
prey or are they technical and inventing stuff?

On Thu, 22 Oct 2015 18:46:32 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Now I would like to know the difference between a good npe and a bad
npe. Can you help?

the first question to ask is if it's a mail drop with no employees,
possibly one which is located in east texas.

That's by no means conclusive

yes it is

but it would certainly make me curious.

about what?

Now, what about an npe with a large staff and an easily identifiable
office?

that depends on what the staff does. are they all attorneys looking for
prey or are they technical and inventing stuff?

Business men, sales men, accountants, economists, technical people,
attorneys: but no inventing. They get their patents from others.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 10/22/2015 2:16 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

nospam equates this
with being a patent troll.

they usually are.

What is it within the class of npe organisations which distinguishes a
patent-troll from a patent-not-troll?

basically, a company whose business model is to acquire patents and
sue, versus actually inventing stuff and advancing technology.

First of all, most of the alleged patent troll nuisance suits are over
design patents and not utility patents. Design patents don't do
anything to advance technology, and would not be considered to be an
"invention".

source?

Do what you tell other people to do: look it up. Most *patent* suits
are about utility patents, but that doesn't mean that most suits
brought by NPEs are about utility patents.

backpedaling so fast??

you made a statement, you get to support it.


You still haven't responded to most of my requests for support for
your statements.. Yet you have the balls to complain about others.

--
PeterN

On 10/22/2015 2:16 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Now I would like to know the difference between a good npe and a bad
npe. Can you help?

the first question to ask is if it's a mail drop with no employees,
possibly one which is located in east texas.


So if I decide to go into the business of purchasing patents, and run
the business all by myself, why should it matter to you?
As I said earlier, don't steal patents.

--
PeterN

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:12:35 -0400, "PAS"
wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Apple faces a bill of $862m (£565m) after losing a patent lawsuit.

The damages have yet to be decided. They could be much less than
this.

apple was sued by the #5 most feared patent troll:
http://www.businessinsider.com/bigge...anies-2012-11?
op=0#5-wisconsin-alumni-research-foundation-warf-4

They own the patent and are protecting it. You find a problem with that
or is it that you just Apple a pass on this?

I've just come across this site:
http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd....g&mid=15410790
or http://tinyurl.com/pnk96g6

I believe it is relevant to the whole way this argument has developed
in this news group.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens