Ehm, I don't think universities are for sale
never say never....
Ehm, I don't think universities are for sale
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.
apple acquires this company in 3....2.....1....
Ehm, I don't think universities are for sale
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.
Broadcom is worth $58.7 billion. Apple is worth $586 billion. I'm no lawyer, but that may have something to do with it.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.
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.
Greedy lawyers follow the money. But in this case the case is against Broadcom, put Apple included in hope of getting more money, money...
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.
CalTech? I don't think they have much of that issue at the moment.It's probably a reaction to less enrollment because of the poor economy and third wave brain washing and the college needs funds!
It's probably a reaction to less enrollment because of the poor economy and third wave brain washing and the college needs funds!
Not to mention CalTech is run by socialists trying to get money anyway it can to defeat real Americans!
Not to mention CalTech is run by socialists trying to get money anyway it can to defeat real Americans!
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.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?"