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

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

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/bigge...s-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?

Someone might want it for free...
--
teleportation kills

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 06:49:49 +0200, android wrote:

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

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/bigge...s-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?

Someone might want it for free...

Lotsa people believe they are *entitled* to it for free.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , sid
wrote:

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.

What about Apple themselves?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_...Electronics_Co.

in that case, people bashed apple for suing samsung, despite clear
evidence that samsung not only copied apple but they set out to do so.
samsung did such a good job of copying that samsung's own lawyers
couldn't tell the difference in court.

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.

If you're going to bash University Wisconsin for patent defence then
you
should surely be bashing Apple, no? Calling them patent trolls even?

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

It doesn't matter whether they make products or not. It's their patent.
What part of that is so hard for you to understand?

"nospam" wrote in message
...
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.

You've pointed out nothing.

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

No one bashed Apple in this thread.

warf is an npe. they do absolutely nothing with their patents other
than sue people. they even got paid to develop that patent *by* intel
and then turned around and sued them.

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.

In what part of my post did I bash Apple?

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

Intel being sued has nothing to do with this, how WARF operates has no
bearing. This is about Apple infringing on IP. Are you contesting that
Apple did not infringe on WARF's IP? Did they infringe, yes or no?
Answer that question. I won't hold my breath.

On 2015-10-15 14:31:16 +0000, "PAS" said:

No one bashed Apple in this thread.

Other than in the subject line where the "Sleazy, scumbag Apple" slight
was used.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2015101507590855621-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2015-10-15 14:31:16 +0000, "PAS" said:

No one bashed Apple in this thread.

Other than in the subject line where the "Sleazy, scumbag Apple"
slight was used.

No one that nospam has replied to that he accused of bashing Apple has
done so.

On 2015-10-15 15:09:33 +0000, "PAS" said:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2015101507590855621-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2015-10-15 14:31:16 +0000, "PAS" said:

No one bashed Apple in this thread.

Other than in the subject line where the "Sleazy, scumbag Apple" slight
was used.

No one that nospam has replied to that he accused of bashing Apple has done so.

How do you explain RichA's use of those words in the subject line?

Bashing is very much a nospam word, and is his loose interpretation of
what this OP was all about.

Call it bashing, or call it pointing out Apple failings, RichA has been
consistant in his criticism of all things Apple, Adobe, and B&H. He
searches out these stories and posts them in the photo groups knowing
full well that he is going to yank nospam's chain. The subject line of
his OP is an indication of his intent. This is nothing but an off topic
TROLL in rec.photo.digital, one which has worked just as Rich intended.
He hasn't posted this in any of the Apple centric NGs.

RichA is a TROLL who knows how to bait a hook.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2015101508555789520-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2015-10-15 15:09:33 +0000, "PAS" said:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2015101507590855621-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2015-10-15 14:31:16 +0000, "PAS" said:

No one bashed Apple in this thread.

Other than in the subject line where the "Sleazy, scumbag Apple"
slight was used.

No one that nospam has replied to that he accused of bashing Apple
has done so.

How do you explain RichA's use of those words in the subject line?

Bashing is very much a nospam word, and is his loose interpretation of
what this OP was all about.

Call it bashing, or call it pointing out Apple failings, RichA has
been consistant in his criticism of all things Apple, Adobe, and B&H.
He searches out these stories and posts them in the photo groups
knowing full well that he is going to yank nospam's chain. The subject
line of his OP is an indication of his intent. This is nothing but an
off topic TROLL in rec.photo.digital, one which has worked just as
Rich intended. He hasn't posted this in any of the Apple centric NGs.

RichA is a TROLL who knows how to bait a hook.

I'm well aware of that. I am referring to those that nospam
specifically accused of "bashing" Apple, me being one of them. Neither
I nor anyone else he has responded to and accused has done any Apple
bashing.

In article 2015101508555789520-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:

On 2015-10-15 15:09:33 +0000, "PAS" said:

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2015101507590855621-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2015-10-15 14:31:16 +0000, "PAS" said:

No one bashed Apple in this thread.

Other than in the subject line where the "Sleazy, scumbag Apple" slight
was used.

No one that nospam has replied to that he accused of bashing Apple has done
so.

How do you explain RichA's use of those words in the subject line?

Bashing is very much a nospam word, and is his loose interpretation of
what this OP was all about.

Call it bashing, or call it pointing out Apple failings, RichA has been
consistant in his criticism of all things Apple, Adobe, and B&H. He
searches out these stories and posts them in the photo groups knowing
full well that he is going to yank nospam's chain. The subject line of
his OP is an indication of his intent. This is nothing but an off topic
TROLL in rec.photo.digital, one which has worked just as Rich intended.
He hasn't posted this in any of the Apple centric NGs.

RichA is a TROLL who knows how to bait a hook.

You would think that he would interested in the embarrassing results of
the iPhone over at the DxOmark... But NO! I think that he plans to buy a
stake in APPL and wants the stock down (temporarily) but not the company
ruined!!!
--
teleportation kills

On 2015-10-15 16:25:03 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 08:55:57 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:
On 2015-10-15 15:09:33 +0000, "PAS" said:
"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2015101507590855621-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2015-10-15 14:31:16 +0000, "PAS" said:

No one bashed Apple in this thread.

Other than in the subject line where the "Sleazy, scumbag Apple" slight
was used.

No one that nospam has replied to that he accused of bashing Apple has done so.

How do you explain RichA's use of those words in the subject line?

Bashing is very much a nospam word, and is his loose interpretation of
what this OP was all about.

nospam's position that if you say anything negative about Apple that
you should also say something negative about some other company that
does the same or similar is ridiculous.

Posts here are not white papers on what's going on the industry. They
needn't be "fair and balanced". They are expressed opinions.

nospam is no more fair and balanced than Rich. He consistently
"bashes" people who don't utilize the newest shiny object, but never
presents the other side of the story: do what is comfortable for you
if it works".

If Rich wants to post only links to negative things about Apple,
there's no requirement for him to include negative information about
anyone else.

RichA is a TROLL who knows how to bait a hook.

Who's the fool, though? Rich for doing exactly what he wants to do,
or the lower case fish who bites the hook every time?

;-)

--
Regards,

Savageduck