CalTech gets over 200 million a year in Federal and State funding, anything they create through federal and state funding should immediately go into the Public Domain.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Ordered to Pay Caltech $838 Million for Infringing on WiFi Patents
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Hence the court should award it and the State should limit its usage rather than expense it to non-academia purposes. To my knowledge the courts do not direct the usage of an award, in this case it’s up to the State to mandate its proper investment.
[automerge]1580352821[/automerge]
I partially convite that the funds should be granted to CalTec but only to be used for academic purposes. It should be a stipulation of Federal and State funding, if not maybe it’s time to visit this situation.
[automerge]1580352994[/automerge]
I don’t believe that is how it works if a court judgement has been reached. Now if Apple donated $840 million then it can only write off $2 million.
[automerge]1580353177[/automerge]
In the grand scheme of things having a legal department defend these claims cost more than coming to a mutual agreement of royalties, plus it saves additional court costs and time.
Example: Qualcomm versus Apple.
[automerge]1580353535[/automerge]
Some schools do not have the legal might unlike large corporations, even more reason for the justified delay to make sure the claim is valid and patent holders rights protected by the court award.
This is just bad PR for Apple, it will be seen as a large profitable corporation taking away from a State educational institute while possibly doing damage to present and future R&D projects. It’s just not a good image or headline.
Corporations suing corporations in a lengthy court battle, fine. But against an educational institute, it is not a good look.
Last edited:
The grant provides the finance certain benefits within the agreed upon contract. As you say if the Federal government provided a percentage of the grant or is permitted to use its return on investment. This is usually seen with defence contracts for its purpose. That does not mean a private company can use it without investing a dime in the R&D process. What if nothing came out of the research the Federal government lost on its investment and the private company lost nothing.
Now if the government classifies it under FRAND, then that is a different issue. But I suspect it will be after the fact of the court judgement and Apple will still have to pay up.
If Caltech did not participate in the 802.11 standards process, they are under no obligation to follow FRAND licensing or patent disclosure rules. IEEE, or any other standards body, cannot take private intellectual property rights and force their owners to comply with their licensing terms, just as IEEE can't force you to rent your living room out to Apple.
I think there’s a long and healthy argument to be had about whether universities should be charging for IP, particularly if that research is funded by government or tuition. Not all schools in the world do, but it’s certainly common in the US. This debate should be at least as long as the one about sports as a source of revenue.
If the argument is that the IP should be public domain, however, the missing revenue needs to be found elsewhere— likely through higher taxes or higher tuitions.
All of that said, the question of whether the “kids”, endowment, or Apple are “rich” is completely irrelevant.
If the argument is that the IP should be public domain, however, the missing revenue needs to be found elsewhere— likely through higher taxes or higher tuitions.
All of that said, the question of whether the “kids”, endowment, or Apple are “rich” is completely irrelevant.
Right. But the iPhone 12 will have 2 cameras and cost $3200
Same rule I used to use for parking. Never paid for parking, only the tickets. Saved about $100/month doing it this way.
The question is did public funds pay for the research? This exact question has been bouncing around for quite some time. Universities already benefit greatly from both public funding and tax exempt status. Quite honestly, I think universities should be allowed to claim some ownership of the ideas they generate but in a more limited way compared to businesses.
Lol you mean donate their research so companies can profit off of them? **** that. Caltech should get that money and invest in their students and research to produce even more new research. schools are certainly in the business to profit from patents. of course these institutions are not for profit, which simply means they reinvest those profits. it doesn't mean they just give away their tech so someone else can profit.
Research that was paid for by the taxpayer. They invested zero of their own money. They received taxpayer dollars from the Federal Government (via the NSF in this case) to do this research.
Second copyright infringement ruling against Apple this month alone. 15 billion € owed to the EU due to tax evasion.
But yeah, Samsung is the devil for having copied rounded the corner design and a lot of people find it very tough to forgive them for that.
But yeah, Samsung is the devil for having copied rounded the corner design and a lot of people find it very tough to forgive them for that.
Caltech is a great school, and you don't need to be rich to matriculate there. You just need to work hard and get scholarships. Sounds like you have some pretty deep resentment lying there and its not far under the surface. <sad face> I looked at getting my physics doctorate there, it wasn't too bad considering the reputation and the jobs waiting on the other side. Some of their doctorate programs are just so many tiers above the rest, I had no doubt in my mind it was the best place for what I wanted to do.
Caltech will pay the professor and the "kids", the graduate students, on the patent around 1/3 of the money they get. (It's 35% in the UC System). Regardless, the "kids" will be rich now.
You do realize that schools actively engage with various stakeholders in order to be awarded grants for R&D projects. By making a name for themselves they attract private and public interest in various forms.
The way you make it sound is that State, Federal and Private donors just threw funds at CalTech to come up with something and then the school turned around patented it and decided to sue Apple and anyone else infringing on they work. All invested parties have conditions and it’s unfortunate that Apple decided not to contribute funds, if it had I am sure this would be a moot point.
No, there were no copyright infringement rulings against Apple this month.
Amazes me. how many apple Fans are BLIND. to anything wrong the company does.
Some people have a complex, if it is the school that has your program and you like the culture pick what suits you. I don’t understand why people bash a school because for whatever reason, lame.
You infringe numerous patents every day in all likelihood. For many patents, one has merely to use an infringing product to infringe. Doesn’t mean we are bad people.
I am an Apple shareholder and “fan” but I feel Apple should pay the court order and invest in educational R&D projects. macOS has its roots with FreeBSD, open-source where would Apple be without Berkeley.
[automerge]1580361774[/automerge]
What are you talking about, what product are you using that intentionally infringes on others property. If you are referring to Apple products then guess what it’s the product maker to abide by those rights as a consumer you pay for the product or service under the notion that the company product being purchased is kosher.
[automerge]1580361861[/automerge]
You mean most of the tax dollars tucked away in Ireland. Yeah got it.
Not in the United States. 80% of money comes from Federal sources. Given we established it was a normal NSF grant, I'm nearly certain that NSF paid 100% of the bill. If it was an NSF center, then maybe Apple could have been offered the ability to contribute funds, but it isn't.
Basically, the PI wrote a grant proposal to NSF to do research on error correction, a committee selected it, and NSF wrote them a check.
Regardless, as I said, most universities will not accept grant or contract conditions that doesn't allow them to hold on to the IP rights. (It has to do with non-profit/governmental status, they claim) So even if Apple contributed, it does not in itself guarantee that Apple will be granted a license.
Last edited:
25% (Caltech isn’t UC)
Patent Policy - Caltech Office of the General Counsel
I guess I’m not sure the point you were trying to make... The points I was making in the part you quoted were that the cost of running the University doesn’t change so if it’s not paid for with royalties it will have to be paid somehow and the argument that Caltech is a “rich kids school” or Apple is a wealthy company doesn’t really bear on the general policy debate.
If you’re just pointing out that the three inventors are looking at quite a payday here, there‘s no argument there. They’re not kids though— first filing was in 2000, so even if they were students then they’re pushing 40 now.
McEliece died last year... Depending on how royalties are handled with his estate, his kids might be rich.
Robert J. McEliece, 1942–2019
Alumnus and engineering faculty member Robert J. McEliece has passed away.
www.caltech.edu
Impressive guy.
Yes think about it. How awesome would it be to install iOS on a Samsung or other $200 phones.
But i guess Apple wouldn’t sell 1/10th of its iphones anymore.
So u see what patents are for...
hmm...that’ would be smart; China would no longer need to steal or infringe would they..or anyone else for that matter?