for patent infringement:
"A U.S. jury on Friday ordered Apple Inc. to pay the University of Wisconsin-Madison's patent licensing arm more than $234 million in damages for incorporating its microchip technology into some of the company's iPhones and iPads without permission."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/1...0E20151016
This is about three times more than UW's annual athletic expenditures. It just goes to show (in a high-profile way) how insignificant TV contracts with ESPN are to a university's bottom line.
I'm generally of the opinion that most novel knowledge comes from university research and that companies just figure out economical ways of realizing such ideas. So in that sense, I'm glad some of Apple's richest are going back to such universities, even if by force.
My question is: who tipped them off? Or does Wisconsin's IP go around looking at every new computer chip to see if it incorporates this technology?
(10-16-2015 10:38 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ]for patent infringement:
"A U.S. jury on Friday ordered Apple Inc. to pay the University of Wisconsin-Madison's patent licensing arm more than $234 million in damages for incorporating its microchip technology into some of the company's iPhones and iPads without permission."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/1...0E20151016
This is about three times more than UW's annual athletic expenditures. It just goes to show (in a high-profile way) how insignificant TV contracts with ESPN are to a university's bottom line.
Except that Wisconsin may have spent $300M to get the $234M in salaries, lawyers, labs, buildings, etc.
(10-17-2015 08:59 AM)Section 200 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-16-2015 10:38 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ]for patent infringement:
"A U.S. jury on Friday ordered Apple Inc. to pay the University of Wisconsin-Madison's patent licensing arm more than $234 million in damages for incorporating its microchip technology into some of the company's iPhones and iPads without permission."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/1...0E20151016
This is about three times more than UW's annual athletic expenditures. It just goes to show (in a high-profile way) how insignificant TV contracts with ESPN are to a university's bottom line.
Except that Wisconsin may have spent $300M to get the $234M in salaries, lawyers, labs, buildings, etc.
Don't they have to pay the court and lawyer fees too, in this type settlement
I'm guessing Wisconsin's IP organization employees IP lawyers, on salary. That's sort've of the point.
If you're going to issue patents in the first place, or fight patent infringement, you need IP lawyers to do that.
There's a good book on these issues called "The Entrepreneurial State" by Marianna Mazzucato, and it shows how 27 of the most important patents in the iPhone came from funding provided by the national foundations (to universities, but also govt research).
Another example is DARPA developing the internet.
Mazzucato argues that rather than fight legal battles, which is good for no one, the entities with the patents should take shares.
A lot of people argue govt entities should not be suing private companies since the research is in the public trust (it is publicly owned, so I dont really get this argument) but Mazzucato says an easy way to emphasize investment and future research is to take the money from shares and then promise to plow 100% of the proceeds back into research.
(10-17-2015 01:23 PM)upstater1 Wrote: [ -> ]There's a good book on these issues called "The Entrepreneurial State" by Marianna Mazzucato, and it shows how 27 of the most important patents in the iPhone came from funding provided by the national foundations (to universities, but also govt research).
Another example is DARPA developing the internet.
Mazzucato argues that rather than fight legal battles, which is good for no one, the entities with the patents should take shares.
A lot of people argue govt entities should not be suing private companies since the research is in the public trust (it is publicly owned, so I dont really get this argument) but Mazzucato says an easy way to emphasize investment and future research is to take the money from shares and then promise to plow 100% of the proceeds back into research.
Getting cash, or getting Apple shares which are sold for cash - it's six of one, half-dozen of the other. There would be just as big of a legal battle over "how many shares" as there is about "how much cash."
Getting cash directly would make more sense because they'd avoid the transaction costs involved with actually selling the shares.
Put me in the camp that says a public school has no business suing over patent issues.
That's suing over what these schools are funded and intended for.
I can kind of see the argument that there should be a benefit for the people of Wisconsin given it is primarily their investment but still. They all do have iPhones now.
(10-17-2015 08:06 AM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]I'm generally of the opinion that most novel knowledge comes from university research and that companies just figure out economical ways of realizing such ideas. So in that sense, I'm glad some of Apple's richest are going back to such universities, even if by force.
My question is: who tipped them off? Or does Wisconsin's IP go around looking at every new computer chip to see if it incorporates this technology?
(10-17-2015 01:37 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2015 01:23 PM)upstater1 Wrote: [ -> ]There's a good book on these issues called "The Entrepreneurial State" by Marianna Mazzucato, and it shows how 27 of the most important patents in the iPhone came from funding provided by the national foundations (to universities, but also govt research).
Another example is DARPA developing the internet.
Mazzucato argues that rather than fight legal battles, which is good for no one, the entities with the patents should take shares.
A lot of people argue govt entities should not be suing private companies since the research is in the public trust (it is publicly owned, so I dont really get this argument) but Mazzucato says an easy way to emphasize investment and future research is to take the money from shares and then promise to plow 100% of the proceeds back into research.
Getting cash, or getting Apple shares which are sold for cash - it's six of one, half-dozen of the other. There would be just as big of a legal battle over "how many shares" as there is about "how much cash."
Getting cash directly would make more sense because they'd avoid the transaction costs involved with actually selling the shares.
A lot of the patents are given for free (not stolen s Apple did here) at the investment stage. In other words, the research entities take a shareholder stake in start-ups. Trust me, she has it well worked out.
(10-17-2015 01:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]Put me in the camp that says a public school has no business suing over patent issues.
That's suing over what these schools are funded and intended for.
I can kind of see the argument that there should be a benefit for the people of Wisconsin given it is primarily their investment but still. They all do have iPhones now.
We're a nation that is slashing research, getting our butts kicked by China in R&D, while corporations aren't picking up the slack. This will make us poorer in the future, and will weaken the country.
(10-17-2015 02:20 PM)upstater1 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2015 01:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]Put me in the camp that says a public school has no business suing over patent issues.
That's suing over what these schools are funded and intended for.
I can kind of see the argument that there should be a benefit for the people of Wisconsin given it is primarily their investment but still. They all do have iPhones now.
We're a nation that is slashing research, getting our butts kicked by China in R&D, while corporations aren't picking up the slack. This will make us poorer in the future, and will weaken the country.
"This," as in? I'm not sure which position you are taking.
(10-17-2015 02:20 PM)upstater1 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2015 01:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]Put me in the camp that says a public school has no business suing over patent issues.
That's suing over what these schools are funded and intended for.
I can kind of see the argument that there should be a benefit for the people of Wisconsin given it is primarily their investment but still. They all do have iPhones now.
We're a nation that is slashing research, getting our butts kicked by China in R&D, while corporations aren't picking up the slack. This will make us poorer in the future, and will weaken the country.
Very true, unfortunately. We cannot take prosperity for granted like we have a God given right to it as a nation, comes from hard work and being innovative.
The place where that money is going isn't going to have any impact on academics or athletics. Wisconsin tried to get over 800 million dollars and only got the amount the OP listed.
This is mere pennies for Apple.
(10-17-2015 02:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2015 02:20 PM)upstater1 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2015 01:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]Put me in the camp that says a public school has no business suing over patent issues.
That's suing over what these schools are funded and intended for.
I can kind of see the argument that there should be a benefit for the people of Wisconsin given it is primarily their investment but still. They all do have iPhones now.
We're a nation that is slashing research, getting our butts kicked by China in R&D, while corporations aren't picking up the slack. This will make us poorer in the future, and will weaken the country.
"This," as in? I'm not sure which position you are taking.
I'm of the opinion that the people who invent ideas, concepts, or technologies should profit from their intelligence. The people who should NOT profit are those who steal these ideas for pennies on the dollar, if they pay anything at all.
If a business steals an intellectual property, they should pay for it - big time - since they tried not paying for it at all. If a business wants an idea, they can easily afford to pay the person responsible in up front money, and a percentage ever afterward. But they aren't willing to do this, because it cuts into their profit margin.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the business interests here. They have R&D departments of their own. But I don't notice any great leaps coming out of their research lately.
(10-18-2015 06:59 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2015 02:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2015 02:20 PM)upstater1 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2015 01:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]Put me in the camp that says a public school has no business suing over patent issues.
That's suing over what these schools are funded and intended for.
I can kind of see the argument that there should be a benefit for the people of Wisconsin given it is primarily their investment but still. They all do have iPhones now.
We're a nation that is slashing research, getting our butts kicked by China in R&D, while corporations aren't picking up the slack. This will make us poorer in the future, and will weaken the country.
"This," as in? I'm not sure which position you are taking.
I'm of the opinion that the people who invent ideas, concepts, or technologies should profit from their intelligence. The people who should NOT profit are those who steal these ideas for pennies on the dollar, if they pay anything at all.
If a business steals an intellectual property, they should pay for it - big time - since they tried not paying for it at all. If a business wants an idea, they can easily afford to pay the person responsible in up front money, and a percentage ever afterward. But they aren't willing to do this, because it cuts into their profit margin.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the business interests here. They have R&D departments of their own. But I don't notice any great leaps coming out of their research lately.
In general I agree; but, we are talking about a public university which is explicitly not for profit.
(10-18-2015 06:59 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2015 02:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2015 02:20 PM)upstater1 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2015 01:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]Put me in the camp that says a public school has no business suing over patent issues.
That's suing over what these schools are funded and intended for.
I can kind of see the argument that there should be a benefit for the people of Wisconsin given it is primarily their investment but still. They all do have iPhones now.
We're a nation that is slashing research, getting our butts kicked by China in R&D, while corporations aren't picking up the slack. This will make us poorer in the future, and will weaken the country.
"This," as in? I'm not sure which position you are taking.
I'm of the opinion that the people who invent ideas, concepts, or technologies should profit from their intelligence. The people who should NOT profit are those who steal these ideas for pennies on the dollar, if they pay anything at all.
If a business steals an intellectual property, they should pay for it - big time - since they tried not paying for it at all. If a business wants an idea, they can easily afford to pay the person responsible in up front money, and a percentage ever afterward. But they aren't willing to do this, because it cuts into their profit margin.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the business interests here. They have R&D departments of their own. But I don't notice any great leaps coming out of their research lately.
You got to be kidding? Cure for many genetic diseases, Hepatitis b, cancer and on and on are in the clinic. Hepatitis C has a cure. A new internet technology is just around the corner making everything cheaper and more efficient. Tablet's and iPhone and androids are almost Star Trek-esque. Self driVing cars. Oil is cheap because of technology. Even clothes are smarter or are cheap.
There has never been a time in human history where innovation is happening so fast.
It's not Bell Labs or IBM anymore with great ideas. It's small companies that are incorporated around some great ideas that are making the difference. Large companies often just buy this small IP companies if they start to take off.
(10-17-2015 02:20 PM)upstater1 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2015 01:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]Put me in the camp that says a public school has no business suing over patent issues.
That's suing over what these schools are funded and intended for.
I can kind of see the argument that there should be a benefit for the people of Wisconsin given it is primarily their investment but still. They all do have iPhones now.
We're a nation that is slashing research, getting our butts kicked by China in R&D, while corporations aren't picking up the slack. This will make us poorer in the future, and will weaken the country.
Give one example of where IP in China is greater than the US.
People predicted Japan would be the next IP giant thirty years ago. Still waiting for that.
Japan and now China improve upon US technology, but don't make breakthroughs.
Israel has been making greal strides in biotech, electronic, and weapons IP though. A little powerhouse.
(10-18-2015 07:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2015 06:59 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2015 02:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2015 02:20 PM)upstater1 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2015 01:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]Put me in the camp that says a public school has no business suing over patent issues.
That's suing over what these schools are funded and intended for.
I can kind of see the argument that there should be a benefit for the people of Wisconsin given it is primarily their investment but still. They all do have iPhones now.
We're a nation that is slashing research, getting our butts kicked by China in R&D, while corporations aren't picking up the slack. This will make us poorer in the future, and will weaken the country.
"This," as in? I'm not sure which position you are taking.
I'm of the opinion that the people who invent ideas, concepts, or technologies should profit from their intelligence. The people who should NOT profit are those who steal these ideas for pennies on the dollar, if they pay anything at all.
If a business steals an intellectual property, they should pay for it - big time - since they tried not paying for it at all. If a business wants an idea, they can easily afford to pay the person responsible in up front money, and a percentage ever afterward. But they aren't willing to do this, because it cuts into their profit margin.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the business interests here. They have R&D departments of their own. But I don't notice any great leaps coming out of their research lately.
In general I agree; but, we are talking about a public university which is explicitly not for profit.
So what? That money that they should be getting can be put back into more research and other ventures or heck just paying off the costs of the R&D that they do all the time. That money that the company was essentially stealing could have been invested by the university in a way that could produce more creations that the company may want (which of course they will later try to steal again).
(10-18-2015 07:43 PM)NoDak Wrote: [ -> ] (10-18-2015 06:59 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2015 02:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2015 02:20 PM)upstater1 Wrote: [ -> ] (10-17-2015 01:50 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote: [ -> ]Put me in the camp that says a public school has no business suing over patent issues.
That's suing over what these schools are funded and intended for.
I can kind of see the argument that there should be a benefit for the people of Wisconsin given it is primarily their investment but still. They all do have iPhones now.
We're a nation that is slashing research, getting our butts kicked by China in R&D, while corporations aren't picking up the slack. This will make us poorer in the future, and will weaken the country.
"This," as in? I'm not sure which position you are taking.
I'm of the opinion that the people who invent ideas, concepts, or technologies should profit from their intelligence. The people who should NOT profit are those who steal these ideas for pennies on the dollar, if they pay anything at all.
If a business steals an intellectual property, they should pay for it - big time - since they tried not paying for it at all. If a business wants an idea, they can easily afford to pay the person responsible in up front money, and a percentage ever afterward. But they aren't willing to do this, because it cuts into their profit margin.
I have absolutely no sympathy for the business interests here. They have R&D departments of their own. But I don't notice any great leaps coming out of their research lately.
You got to be kidding? Cure for many genetic diseases, Hepatitis b, cancer and on and on are in the clinic. Hepatitis C has a cure. A new internet technology is just around the corner making everything cheaper and more efficient. Tablet's and iPhone and androids are almost Star Trek-esque. Self driVing cars. Oil is cheap because of technology. Even clothes are smarter or are cheap.
There has never been a time in human history where innovation is happening so fast.
It's not Bell Labs or IBM anymore with great ideas. It's small companies that are incorporated around some great ideas that are making the difference. Large companies often just buy this small IP companies if they start to take off.
There is no CURE for hepatitis. The cures promoted thus far only put the disease into remission. But people who contract the disease carry the hepatitis antigen in their blood for the remainder of their lives, and it's contagious.
Trust me on that one. I picked up hepatitis in Vietnam - both B and C. Although since hepatitis C wasn't discovered until 1988, when it was called non-A, non-B hepatitis, mine had run chronic for 25 years by the time it was diagnosed. It was named hepatitis C in 1992. And since both hepatitis strains in my body were Southeast Asian, it was determined I most likely picked up both at the same time. I had a liver transplant nearly 12 years ago as a long term result. So don't try to tell me about hepatitis. There are few people who are as knowledgeable about the subject as your's truly.
As for Tablets and iPhones, they were developed overseas, as have most recent technological developments in whatever field you wish to name. American inventions are NOT pushing the world forward today. The USA was surpassed long ago, but nobody is willing to admit it.
The only thing America is good at inventing is new ways to kill people, including the innocent.
(10-18-2015 08:33 PM)bitcruncher Wrote: [ -> ]As for Tablets and iPhones, they were developed overseas, as have most recent technological developments in whatever field you wish to name. American inventions are NOT pushing the world forward today. The USA was surpassed long ago, but nobody is willing to admit it.
The only thing America is good at inventing is new ways to kill people, including the innocent.
This highlighted part is 100% wrong, bit.
For one thing, "tablets and iPhones" aren't what's "pusing the world forward." Besides, they didn't really involve any new technologies - mp3 players and cell phones had both been around for over a decade before Apple combined them.
The USA is #1 in pure research. Something around 60-80% of the top-cited academic articles come from American universities (depending on the field). The only countries competing with us on a per-capita basis are the UK, Canada, Switzerland, and Israel.
The USA is #1 on patents. Even if you look at per-capita patents, the only countries ahead of us are South Korea and Japan - and Korea's top experts were nearly all trained in the USA.
But our real advantage lies in turning developing research into commercial uses. We're so far ahead of everyone else in this category even on a per-capita basis that it's not even a race.