Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaleReeck
You aren't getting it. NTP didn't invent squat. They don't invent anything or make any products. Most of their employees are lawyers. They are a patent holding company who go out and either buy other people's patents or patent common no-brainer ideas and wait for someone else to do the work. Then they demand payment or sue. So yes, they are scum of the earth.
|
So the patent in question, which is it? Is it a patent they purchased (you could call that "investing in") or is it a no brainer patent?
Quote:
Also, it's not that the patent office knowingly gives invalid patents. It's actually easy to get a patent as the initial process doesn't involve much research on their part. Only if there is a conflict, such as in this case, does the patent office review (and reverse if necessary) previously issued patents.
Actually, I don't have (much) of a problem with what initially went down between NTP and RIM. I still think its a scummy business, but its RIM's business how they wanted to deal with it. The thing that burns me is, NTP has a deal with RIM for $450,000,000. Not a bad paycheck for doing nothing.
|
They didn't do nothing. At worst, they only invested in the patent, which isn't "nothing." Unless this was a no brainer patent that requires an extremely modest investment. Let's say they invested in it by buying it from the guy that invented it. What is the limit of the return on investment they should be allowed to make?
So, you have a chance to sell X for $Y and you realize during negotiations that X is worth 2$Y. Why is that greed?
Quote:
|
... and realized they could go for twice as much (some say they want as much as $1 billion), they renegged on the deal. And the dumba$$ courts decided that going back on a deal is apparently OK.
|
Well, we have the law to look at here. Which law was broken, or did the court say it was ok to back out? Which law did the court system allow to be broken?
Quote:
|
Considering the kid of business NTP engages it and that most of their employees are lawyers, I'm not really surprised though.
|
Classical logical fallacy, called an ad hominem. When all else fails, just pile on the derisive lawyer comments.