chadbag

StrangeDays said:

beowulfschmidt said:

It's not "troll" behavior if the patents are legitimate and are legitimately being infringed.  And the proper place to determine legitimacy is in the courts.  Not in a clickbait headline.

Counterpoint: if they’re a NPE and use the patents not to protect their work on product, they’re absolutely a patent troll. 

No they are leveraging valuable assets.  They paid good money for them and want to make a return.  The company they bought them from did in fact make product and sold them when they no linger needed them.  

This is not hard to understand folks.  

The one thing that I disagree with is suing the user of a product that is said to infringe, or even better, the maker of a product licenses the IP but the IP holder then goes after the users of that product for additional licenses.  

Of what am I speaking?   Specifically about chips or other electronic modules that use a specific IP and the maker of the chip/module pays for a license.   The buyers of the chip, as long as their use of the IP is completely through the facilities of the licensed chip /module, shouldn't be required to get their own license.  However, that is how a lit of these suits come to pass.  The IP holder demands both the chip maker and the chip users get licenses.  They shouldn't be able to demand a user of a licensed product. Reds their own license as long as their use of the IP is completely through the ise of the licensed chip /module.  IP holders shouldn't be able to double dip  

A lot of misunderstanding of IP here.  A holder of IP doesn't need to make their own products.   And you really wouldn't want that to be a requirement.   A lot of stuff is invented by "little guys" who can't make their own products.   Is their work less valuable?  

Selling IP is how a lot of companies (including little guys) get paid for their work.  And they need to sell it to  a big  enough entity that can afford to protect the IP.   A small garage outfit or individual engineer doesn't have the resources to be able to protect their very legit IP they invent.  

Calling them "trolls" is just a way to create bias in the reader 

Luckily mine went through. 

The problem with trying to pay early is that, at least for me, I don't get the option to pay with Apple cash (up to what I have) and having the balance after that paid from my checking account.   Any time I try and pay befoee the deadline it only wants to take from my checking account. But paying on the due date will take from Apple cash first and balance from checking. 

Saying that Apple's App Tracking Transparency privacy hurt sales

Yes. This really makes sense.  That being forbidden from tracking customers will reduce demand for their bikes and/or subscription service.    If they are trying to claim that it diminishes the value of advertising they place, I think they give too much credence to so called targeted advertising.   Numbers I've seen show it has only a minor affect on advertising efficiency.