Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iOSFangirl6001

macrumors 6502
Aug 11, 2015
446
243
And I honestly think it's wrong for a university to "own" the rights to a technology. Shouldn't anything that a university creates be a contribution to the world? Or is it really "just business"? I'm probably not up to speed on all of the details here.


Business is unfortunately a part of universities and where there's business greed can be found. Speculation or no since CalTech is selectivity targeting those with the deepest pockets in their suits $$$ is the obvious motivation here.

They may as well hunt down those on these forums too ** owns multiple apple products and just helped my mom but and iPhone SE **

apple acquires this company in 3....2.....1....

It's a school so I dunno why they'd want it lol


Ehm, I don't think universities are for sale

They aren't
Also I think I added you to multi-quote by accident but eh I'll reply anyway lol
 

jnpy!$4g3cwk

macrumors 65816
Feb 11, 2010
1,119
1,302
And I honestly think it's wrong for a university to "own" the rights to a technology. Shouldn't anything that a university creates be a contribution to the world? Or is it really "just business"? I'm probably not up to speed on all of the details here.

Caltech is a private, non-profit university. So, it is in some ways a "business". This particular action does seem a bit too business-y though, doesn't it? Unfortunately, in recent years, universities have been pushed in this direction by a lot of forces, and, "the public good" is not always a priority.
 

Saucesome2000

macrumors 6502
Dec 10, 2014
338
320
Nashville, TN
It sounds to me like this would strictly be a problem with Broadcom... it doesn't seem to me that Apple should be found liable for using parts supplied by Broadcom which violate these patents. Apple just wants wifi chips - I don't think the inner workings that are detailed would be something they'd look at before making a purchase.
Broadcom is worth $58.7 billion. Apple is worth $586 billion. I'm no lawyer, but that may have something to do with it.
 

thisisnotmyname

macrumors 68020
Oct 22, 2014
2,438
5,251
known but velocity indeterminate
This isn't patent trolling. Patent trolls don't create things. Research universities do. Whether this particular patent suit is or is not legit, it doesn't fall into the same category as patent trolling.

Only being halfway serious but what has CalTech created in reference to this case other than the patent itself and a lawsuit? As stated in the article, this organization (and many universities) are facing budget pressure and thus leveraging their IP to try and create new revenue streams. In that context I could certainly question the purity of a "research university."
 

Bubba Satori

Suspended
Feb 15, 2008
4,726
3,756
B'ham
Greedy lawyers follow the money. But in this case the case is against Broadcom, put Apple included in hope of getting more money, money...

What's the difference between a greedy lawyer and greedy, 16GB, 5,400 rpm Apple?

The number of zeros on the money.
 
Last edited:

kdarling

macrumors P6
Caltech is a private, non-profit university. So, it is in some ways a "business". This particular action does seem a bit too business-y though, doesn't it? Unfortunately, in recent years, universities have been pushed in this direction by a lot of forces, and, "the public good" is not always a priority.

Actually, I'd like to point out that because universities pretty freely license their IP, that _IS_ for the public good.

It is one of the best things about universities investing in research -- they get some revenue to reinvest in more research, and the public gets access to the technology through those who license it. Moreover, often the research is in areas no one else cares to yet look, perhaps because it just doesn't seem worth it.

Now, consider the opposite situation, such as when companies keep their patents to themselves and do _NOT_ license them to anyone else so prices can go down, or so everyone can use them. Or when corporate research is only done in areas that currently interest their accountants.

So from that viewpoint, university research seems a wonderful thing.
 

agapecs

macrumors newbie
May 31, 2016
5
1
Google is trying to bury Apple. I have proof. Look at the Market Cap being whittled away at. This is why I boycott anything Google. CalTech are hypocrites.
 

agapecs

macrumors newbie
May 31, 2016
5
1
Not to mention CalTech is run by socialists trying to get money anyway it can to defeat real Americans!
 
  • Like
Reactions: satcomer

name99

macrumors 68020
Jun 21, 2004
2,184
1,996
Not to mention CalTech is run by socialists trying to get money anyway it can to defeat real Americans!

Perhaps you (and the other geniuses in this thread) might want to look at the actual FACTS behind this.
The legislation that enables (and, honestly, pretty much compels) this behavior is the Bayh-Dole act of 1980.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh–Dole_Act

Yeah, sure, Bayh-Dole only says universities *may* patent, not that they have to. But, strangely enough, turns out that if you don't patent, then next time you go asking for funds, the natural question people are going to ask is "why are you coming to us for money when you made the deliberate choice to not raise money through patenting?"
 

SomeSecurityGuy

macrumors newbie
Mar 30, 2016
19
27
Perhaps you (and the other geniuses in this thread) might want to look at the actual FACTS behind this.
The legislation that enables (and, honestly, pretty much compels) this behavior is the Bayh-Dole act of 1980.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh–Dole_Act

Yeah, sure, Bayh-Dole only says universities *may* patent, not that they have to. But, strangely enough, turns out that if you don't patent, then next time you go asking for funds, the natural question people are going to ask is "why are you coming to us for money when you made the deliberate choice to not raise money through patenting?"
I get that, I do. What I, and seemingly many others in this thread, have a problem with is the naming of a third-party that has nothing to do with the alleged patent violation other than using the products to create their own products. If I buy 1000 sprockets from you to make 1000 widgets, and the sprocket infringed on a patented design, that responsibility is on you, not me. I'm not going to ask you for every single design spec of the sprockets, and that may infringe on IP, I care about it working as designed and that I am able to use it. As much as I dislike Google, if Google were faced with this, I'd be just as annoyed. Unnecessary lawsuits don't encourage me to run to Caltech for my educational needs. What it reeks of is desperation. Permanent injunction against Apple? Seriously? That's not recuperating revenue from the patent, that's taking your toys and crying to mommy that you weren't picked.

Let's for argument's sake say this is a legitimate infringement. Wouldn't it be better served requesting x% of sales from Broadcom to generate revenue than stopping all sales entirely? How is that generating revenue with patents?

This is the problem with patents. Sure, protect your inventions. I'm 100% behind that. But the consumer is the one that loses out when patents are used as giant hammers.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.