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

On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 22:13:20 -0700 (PDT), Rich A
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.

The University of Wisconsin successfully claimed that Apple used its microchip technology without permission in some iPhones and iPads.

The patent, filed in 1998, is said to improve the power efficiency of microchips.

The case relates to use of the technology in the iPhone 5s, 6 and 6 Plus - but an additional lawsuit making the same claim against Apple's newest models, the 6S and 6S Plus, has also been filed.

The University of Wisconsin sued Intel over the same patent in 2008. The case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

In court papers, the university claimed Apple ignored its offers to license the patent, which would mean paying a fee for its continued use.

Therefore the university said Apple was wilfully infringing the patent, something which, if the court agrees, could carry a heavier fine.

The precise amount Apple may have to pay will be decided at a later stage in the court proceedings.

Despite recent well-publicised truces between some big tech firms, fierce patent battles are still being fought in courts globally.

Last week, a judge threw out claims by graphic card specialist Nvidia that Samsung and others had infringed three of its patents.

Follow Dave Lee on Twitter @DaveLeeBBC
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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

"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?

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.

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

In article ,
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.

No, they are defending their IP.

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.

The size of the asked retribution was based on the fact that it was well
known that Intel had lost a similar dispute regarding the same patent.

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

Commie! Then socialist block was somewhat intact they felt like you and
didn't recognize IP...
--
teleportation kills

"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.

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?

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

nospam 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.


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?

--
sid

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.