Take a moment. Are you, in all honesty, comparing Apple, a company that ACTUALLY MAKES PRODUCTS, BOTH HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE, USING PATENTS BOUGHT OR DEVELOPED EXCLUSIVELY BY THEM THEMSELVES to a company that makes no products nor patents but simply buys them?
Yes. I seriously am! You may not like it but the law is the law. If you steal the intellectual property of another company you run the risk of going to court. Since when is it okay for Apple to have potentially stolen another companies IP? Take your time trying to figure out justifying theft when Apple does it. Now till it goes to trial no one here has any idea of what the final outcome will be. But if Apple is found to have violated someone's IP, they will have to pay up.
That would be because it was too hot. Folks diss on that case cause yes it was stupid for her to have the cup in her lap but an investigation showed that McDonalds in her area and others were brewing the coffee too hot.
It melted her frickn' polyester pants to her leg. She's scarred for life.
Yes. The law is the law. If you steal the intellectual property of another company you run the risk of going to court. Since when is it okay for Apple to have potentially stolen another companies IP? Take your time trying to figure out justifying theft when Apple does it.
??????????
Try again, please, with the argument at hand. It's quite easy to take a side that was never opposed.
You claimed Apple was a patent troll for suing over patents. You're very wrong. And at no point was it stated that IP theft is justifiable.
Given that we all still subscribe to Capitalism, I really can't see anything wrong with the basic idea of Non-Practicing Entities. If everyone is going to call them "patent trolls" all belligerently, then we should all start calling Best Buy or Walmart "consumer trolls" because they're all just reselling stuff. The only difference is that an NPE's commodity isn't tangible, and is therefore highly susceptible to theft.
The real problem is that people fall victim to lawsuits unwittingly because there is little awareness regarding patent infringement. It becomes intimidating to try to do something new because you might get whacked after the fact.
Nevertheless, people who patent things have a right to sell their ideas when they don't have the means to implement them. And the people who buy those ideas have a right to make a profit off of them. NPE's should present their patent portfolios like a menu for companies to peruse and purchase.
Try again, please, with the argument at hand. It's quite easy to take a side that was never opposed.
You claimed Apple was a patent troll for suing over patents. You're very wrong. And at no point was it stated that IP theft is justifiable.
Are you 12? If you don't get that if a company has stolen someone else's work then they will be sued just like Apple has sued others then you obviously are never going to get it. Now run along and play with your little icons. Your mommy will be so proud.
Ancient patent no longer used by modern tech: Check Non-practicing Entity: Check Attempt to extort funds before patent expiration from most wealthy target available: Check Desperation so obvious it could be a skit on Mad TV: Check Patent Troll: Abso-fucking-lutaly CHECK!
That would be because it was too hot. Folks diss on that case cause yes it was stupid for her to have the cup in her lap but an investigation showed that McDonalds in her area and others were brewing the coffee too hot.
Yeah, the reason behind that is interesting, too. Apparently when you keep coffee at super high temperatures, it's harder to tell when the pot goes stale. Since they were wasting too many pots of coffee during slow hours, they just cranked up the heat across the board to save a few bucks.
Are you 12? If you don't get that if a company has stolen someone else's work then they will be sued just like Apple has sued others then you obviously are never going to get it. Now run along and play with your little icons.
You are not understanding the use of te word troll.
What does a troll do? They sit under a bridge and wait for someone to cross it before attempting to extract a fee. A patent troll is a company that creates and buys patents specifically to sit on with the hopes that some other company, regardless of how original their idea or method or implementation is, they will sue regardless of how valid the claim.
Never know.. We've see people win lawsuits for coffee being to hot.. If they babble fast enough and confuse the jury, they might win anyway. lol
McD specified a temperature to the cup makers for which the plastic foam must maintain its stability. Lower temperature = lower cost. McD put higher temperature coffee in to the cup than was specified, the cup deformed due to the higher temperature, the coffee spilled, injury followed.
You are not understanding the use of te word troll.
What does a troll do? They sit under a bridge and wait for someone to cross it before attempting to extract a fee. A patent troll is a company that creates and buys patents specifically to sit on with the hopes that some other company, regardless of how original their idea or method or implementation is, they will sue regardless of how valid the claim.
As someone who holds a patent, I understand the concept. What others don't understand is that it makes no difference no matter what label you apply to them - if you steal someone's IP (if you steal from a company that buys up patents, if you steal from Apple etc) then you run the risk of going to court. If Apple used this companies IP then they will need to pay for it. Just because it is Apple stealing from a company that you want to call a troll has does not excuse it.
Are you 12? If you don't get that if a company has stolen someone else's work then they will be sued just like Apple has sued others then you obviously are never going to get it. Now run along and play with your little icons. Your mommy will be so proud.
When you'd like to have an adult argument, please post again.
Originally Posted by bulk001
Just because it is Apple stealing from a company that you want to call a troll has does not excuse it.
I'll say it again: you've ignored your original argument completely. Apple is not a patent troll under the definition of the phrase. Stop arguing something that being argued.
As someone who holds a patent, I understand the concept. What others don't understand is that it makes no difference no matter what label you apply to them - if you steal someone's IP (if you steal from a company that buys up patents, if you steal from Apple etc) then you run the risk of going to court. If Apple used this companies IP then they will need to pay for it. Just because it is Apple stealing from a company that you want to call a troll has does not excuse it.
You're making assumptions that were never stated. No one ever said "if you sue Apple over a patent you are patent troll." It has nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with how the patent holder is attempting to profit from their patent holding. If you created your patent with no intention to implement it and no intention of selling or licensing it to others, but instead wanting to wait for a product that you think infringes on it to be worth billions that you can come in and steal their earned profits through actual innovation and risk then you are patent troll.
You're making assumptions that were never stated. No one ever said "if you sue Apple over a patent you are patent troll." It has nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with how the patent holder is attempting to profit from their patent holding. If you created your patent with no intention to implement it and no intention of selling or licensing it to others, but instead wanting to wait for a product that you think infringes on it to be worth billions that you can come in and steal their earned profits through actual innovation and risk then you are patent troll.
The assumption is that because a company who buys up patents and then sues people who infringe on them is a troll and to be decried on boards like this by hysterical fanbois. But if I do nothing with my patent and someone steals the product idea and process then I will sue. What I do or don't do with my patent does not give anyone the right to steal it. If Apple uses the IP of a firm that holds the patent then they are going to get sued. The responsibility to not infringe on the patent is on Apple.
@tallest skill - whaaaa waaah. I can say it slower. Apple may have stolen from a company that holds the rights to a patent. Your hysteria and the fact that the company is a 'patent troll' does not justify or excuse Apple using the patent without paying for it.
Your use of the word [I]steal[/I] is interesting. If you really think it's not possible for people to conceive of similar ideas independently of each other you need to reevaluate [I]everything[/I].
As someone who holds a patent, I understand the concept. What others don't understand is that it makes no difference no matter what label you apply to them - if you steal someone's IP (if you steal from a company that buys up patents, if you steal from Apple etc) then you run the risk of going to court. If Apple used this companies IP then they will need to pay for it. Just because it is Apple stealing from a company that you want to call a troll has does not excuse it.
So tell us how Apple is "stealing" from this company, given that iPhones use purely digital voice and data and do not use phone lines?
You seem to have left out the word "alleged", part of the presumption of innocence practiced by US courts.
So tell us how Apple is "stealing" from this company, given that iPhones use purely digital voice and data and do not use phone lines?
You seem to have left out the word "alleged", part of the presumption of innocence practiced by US courts.
Yes, I will agree with you, I did leave out the word alleged. This will have to work its way through the courts. Given the high journalistic standards on this board it was a regrettable oversight.
Apple may have stolen from a company that holds the rights to a patent.
Okay. But as this patent holder is just that—not using them for any purpose other than suing others—they are, by definition, a "patent troll".
And as that was the original argument that your post attempted to refute, I say a third time that you could not be more incorrect about your refutation. I again mention for the record that you have since moved the argument on a tangent.
My skimming of the patent in question looks like it only applies to simultaneous ANALOG voice and data transmission. I don't think this applies to any iPhone ever.
@tallest skill - whaaaa waaah. I can say it slower. Apple may have stolen from a company that holds the rights to a patent. Your hysteria and the fact that the company is a 'patent troll' does not justify or excuse Apple using the patent without paying for it.
Actually, the real problem here is that you don't understand the difference in meaning between the words "stolen"and "infringed". Using the word "stolen" (repeatedly) does work very well though if you wish to display hysteria.
Comments
Yes. I seriously am! You may not like it but the law is the law. If you steal the intellectual property of another company you run the risk of going to court. Since when is it okay for Apple to have potentially stolen another companies IP? Take your time trying to figure out justifying theft when Apple does it. Now till it goes to trial no one here has any idea of what the final outcome will be. But if Apple is found to have violated someone's IP, they will have to pay up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrayven
see people win lawsuits for coffee being to hot..
That would be because it was too hot. Folks diss on that case cause yes it was stupid for her to have the cup in her lap but an investigation showed that McDonalds in her area and others were brewing the coffee too hot.
It melted her frickn' polyester pants to her leg. She's scarred for life.
Originally Posted by bulk001
Yes. The law is the law. If you steal the intellectual property of another company you run the risk of going to court. Since when is it okay for Apple to have potentially stolen another companies IP? Take your time trying to figure out justifying theft when Apple does it.
??????????
Try again, please, with the argument at hand. It's quite easy to take a side that was never opposed.
You claimed Apple was a patent troll for suing over patents. You're very wrong. And at no point was it stated that IP theft is justifiable.
The real problem is that people fall victim to lawsuits unwittingly because there is little awareness regarding patent infringement. It becomes intimidating to try to do something new because you might get whacked after the fact.
Nevertheless, people who patent things have a right to sell their ideas when they don't have the means to implement them. And the people who buy those ideas have a right to make a profit off of them. NPE's should present their patent portfolios like a menu for companies to peruse and purchase.
Non-practicing Entity: Check
Attempt to extort funds before patent expiration from most wealthy target available: Check
Desperation so obvious it could be a skit on Mad TV: Check
Patent Troll: Abso-fucking-lutaly CHECK!
Yeah, the reason behind that is interesting, too. Apparently when you keep coffee at super high temperatures, it's harder to tell when the pot goes stale. Since they were wasting too many pots of coffee during slow hours, they just cranked up the heat across the board to save a few bucks.
COFFEE TROLLS!!!
You are not understanding the use of te word troll.
What does a troll do? They sit under a bridge and wait for someone to cross it before attempting to extract a fee. A patent troll is a company that creates and buys patents specifically to sit on with the hopes that some other company, regardless of how original their idea or method or implementation is, they will sue regardless of how valid the claim.
Never know.. We've see people win lawsuits for coffee being to hot.. If they babble fast enough and confuse the jury, they might win anyway. lol
McD specified a temperature to the cup makers for which the plastic foam must maintain its stability. Lower temperature = lower cost. McD put higher temperature coffee in to the cup than was specified, the cup deformed due to the higher temperature, the coffee spilled, injury followed.Your use of "babble" should be put in to context.
As someone who holds a patent, I understand the concept. What others don't understand is that it makes no difference no matter what label you apply to them - if you steal someone's IP (if you steal from a company that buys up patents, if you steal from Apple etc) then you run the risk of going to court. If Apple used this companies IP then they will need to pay for it. Just because it is Apple stealing from a company that you want to call a troll has does not excuse it.
Originally Posted by bulk001
Are you 12? If you don't get that if a company has stolen someone else's work then they will be sued just like Apple has sued others then you obviously are never going to get it. Now run along and play with your little icons. Your mommy will be so proud.
When you'd like to have an adult argument, please post again.
Originally Posted by bulk001
Just because it is Apple stealing from a company that you want to call a troll has does not excuse it.
I'll say it again: you've ignored your original argument completely. Apple is not a patent troll under the definition of the phrase. Stop arguing something that being argued.
You're making assumptions that were never stated. No one ever said "if you sue Apple over a patent you are patent troll." It has nothing to do with Apple and everything to do with how the patent holder is attempting to profit from their patent holding. If you created your patent with no intention to implement it and no intention of selling or licensing it to others, but instead wanting to wait for a product that you think infringes on it to be worth billions that you can come in and steal their earned profits through actual innovation and risk then you are patent troll.
The assumption is that because a company who buys up patents and then sues people who infringe on them is a troll and to be decried on boards like this by hysterical fanbois. But if I do nothing with my patent and someone steals the product idea and process then I will sue. What I do or don't do with my patent does not give anyone the right to steal it. If Apple uses the IP of a firm that holds the patent then they are going to get sued. The responsibility to not infringe on the patent is on Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001
As someone who holds a patent, I understand the concept. What others don't understand is that it makes no difference no matter what label you apply to them - if you steal someone's IP (if you steal from a company that buys up patents, if you steal from Apple etc) then you run the risk of going to court. If Apple used this companies IP then they will need to pay for it. Just because it is Apple stealing from a company that you want to call a troll has does not excuse it.
So tell us how Apple is "stealing" from this company, given that iPhones use purely digital voice and data and do not use phone lines?
You seem to have left out the word "alleged", part of the presumption of innocence practiced by US courts.
Yes, I will agree with you, I did leave out the word alleged. This will have to work its way through the courts. Given the high journalistic standards on this board it was a regrettable oversight.
Originally Posted by bulk001
I can say it slower.
Try saying it more correctly.
Apple may have stolen from a company that holds the rights to a patent.
Okay. But as this patent holder is just that—not using them for any purpose other than suing others—they are, by definition, a "patent troll".
And as that was the original argument that your post attempted to refute, I say a third time that you could not be more incorrect about your refutation. I again mention for the record that you have since moved the argument on a tangent.
My skimming of the patent in question looks like it only applies to simultaneous ANALOG voice and data transmission. I don't think this applies to any iPhone ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulk001
@tallest skill - whaaaa waaah. I can say it slower. Apple may have stolen from a company that holds the rights to a patent. Your hysteria and the fact that the company is a 'patent troll' does not justify or excuse Apple using the patent without paying for it.
Actually, the real problem here is that you don't understand the difference in meaning between the words "stolen"and "infringed". Using the word "stolen" (repeatedly) does work very well though if you wish to display hysteria.
Nicely done.