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

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

what products does the university of wisconsin make? none. all they do
is sue people.

That's your standard? Making a product?

it's not my standard.

they're considered an npe and the #5 patent troll.

On 10/14/2015 6:50 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

what products does the university of wisconsin make? none. all they do
is sue people.

That's your standard? Making a product?

it's not my standard.

they're considered an npe and the #5 patent troll.


Diversionary tactic. By now you should be aware that if the right to
intellectual property is not vigorously defended, it will go into the
public domain.

--
PeterN

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 13:33:43 -0400, nospam
wrote:

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/biggest-patent-holding-companies-2012-11?op=0#5-wisconsin-alumni-research-foundation-warf-4

If that URL works for you can you give me a TinyURL. Every time I try
it (and in every form I try it) it transforms to
www.businessinsider.com.au ... which site can't be found.

I may have located the relative text at
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards...ge_id=81784137
by means of a ramble through Google:

"Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
U.S. patents and patent applications estimated by PatentFreedom:
2,556 What we know about the company: WARF patents technologies
invented by University of Madison researchers and licenses those
patents througout the world. It gives $45 million each year to fund
more research. While it might seem odd to see WARF on a list of
alleged trolls, CleanTech Patent Edge's Kathryn Paisner recently
listed it among NPEs that "reap the benefit of successful products
without investing heavily in development, marketing, and
logistics."
.... Plus a lot more.

So that's the grounds for calling them a patent troll - they invent
things but but don't go on to invest heavily in development,
marketing, and logistics. Well, what do you expect? They are
universities for God's sake. Universities don't operate manufacturing
organisations. But there is no reason why they shouldn't license
spinoff's of their research work. Arm is a classical example: it's a
spinoff of Cambridge University (UK). So what is wrong with that?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 14:46:43 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PAS
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?

they're patent trolls.

they went after intel for the same patent, which used money from intel
themselves to develop it, the ultimate in scumbaggery:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/...ntel-settle-pa
tent-suit-over-core-2-duo
http://www.cnet.com/news/wisconsin-m...-patent-infrin
gement/

if you're going to bash apple for infringing on the patent, then you
have to bash intel for also infringing the same patent. but you won't
because non-apple entities get a free pass for doing the same thing.

Listen Dumb Brain. The present news item is about Apple. A P P L E do
you get it? Besides, Apple and the University have settled (on unknown
terms).

and then there's the whole issue of how screwed up the system is, where
an npe can sue and win.

So universities should allow their own patent's to be ripped off?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:20:48 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

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?

they're patent trolls.

No, they are defending their IP.

when apple defends their patents, they get bashed.

Not by me, if there is a genuine infringement.

you are also ignoring that the school is a npe. what has warf done with
the patent? nothing except sue people. meanwhile, intel and apple are
actually doing something that benefits users.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:20:49 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , PAS
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?

they're patent trolls.

That doesn't matter, it's their patent, they have a right to protect it
just like Apple did against Samsung. Again, you just want to give Apple
a pass on it, it seems.

i'm pointing out the hypocrisy.

apple got bashed for defending their ip with samsung. when apple gets
sued, they get bashed.

Who is doing the bashing?

warf is an npe. they do absolutely nothing with their patents other
than sue people.

One reason they may have done nothing but sue (and we don't actually
know that) is that their two biggest potential licensees went ahead
and used it without getting a license.

they even got paid to develop that patent *by* intel
and then turned around and sued them.

You would have to know the terms of all their agreements before you
can be sure of anything wrong in the universites actions. Not that it
would make much difference to you as you don't seem to have read or
understood your own references.

they went after intel for the same patent, which used money from intel
themselves to develop it, the ultimate in scumbaggery:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/10/05/1831239/warf-and-intel-settle-patent-suit-over-core-2-duo

" Last month, Judge Barbara Crabb found that the funding agreement
was ambiguous, but that e-mails revealed that the money was an
unrestricted gift and carried with it no obligation to license or
assign any inventions to Intel."

http://www.cnet.com/news/wisconsin-madison-sues-intel-for-patent-infringement/

"WARF said it tried to get Intel to license the technology back in
2001, but the company wasn't interested. Intel has also
"aggressively marketed" this type of technology with its Core 2
Duo promotions, according to WARF."

if you're going to bash apple for infringing on the patent,

Reporting the news is not 'bashing Apple'.

then you
have to bash intel for also infringing the same patent. but you won't
because non-apple entities get a free pass for doing the same thing.

But Intel had the sense to settle, which is more than Apple managed to
do.


In what part of my post did I bash Apple?

why didn't you mention intel being sued?

Because that wan't the subject of the article?

why didn't you mention that warf is an npe and doing nothing with the
patent but sue?


--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:50:00 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

what products does the university of wisconsin make? none. all they do
is sue people.

That's your standard? Making a product?

it's not my standard.

they're considered an npe and the #5 patent troll.

By a very reliable source ... :-(
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2015-10-15 01:31:29 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 18:50:00 -0400, nospam
wrote:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

what products does the university of wisconsin make? none. all they do
is sue people.

That's your standard? Making a product?

it's not my standard.

they're considered an npe and the #5 patent troll.

Who is? The University of Wisconsin or the Wisconsin Alumni Research
Foundation? The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation pours $45
million a year into research. If those funds come from defending
their IP rights, is that wrong?

If you mean the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, why bash the
university?


This all sounds cheesy to me.
What I get out of this is, the RichA troll has worked flawlessly.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , android
wrote:

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?

they're patent trolls.

No, they are defending their IP.

when apple defends their patents, they get bashed.

not the issue...

you are also ignoring that the school is a npe. what has warf done with
the patent? nothing except sue people. meanwhile, intel and apple are
actually doing something that benefits users.

non profits are allowed to have incomes... the just don't give back to
the "owners"! they most certainly are obliged to protect their assets!
--
teleportation kills

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

---

Diversionary tactic. By now you should be aware that if the right to
intellectual property is not vigorously defended, it will go into the
public domain.

And that is outrageous and legalized theft. If you take something that
ain't yours than your a thief!
--
teleportation kills