Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DaleReeck
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lapchinj
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by felixdd
Because you lay stake to "intellectual property" that you're not using, nor have any intent in doing so. Someone else whose intent is to make life easier are now denied their legimate needs, based on what we dictate to be "legally" right and wrong...
|
Are you saying that in order to own a patent I must be doing something with it and am not allowed to sit on it? I can buy real estate and do nothing for years with it. I only have an intention to build on it - someday. |
I actually agree with this wholeheartedly, that you must do something with a patent. If you own a patent and don't do anything with it, then you are holding back technological advancement and society as a whole in the name of greed. |
No you aren't. You are getting paid for your ingenuity. And that has nothing to do with this case anyway. A co-founder worked most of his life in wireless message delivery. Just because he wasn't a successful business man at it doesn't mean he was a squatter undeserving of any compensation.
Quote:
|
In any case, I cannot believe that you truly believe that NTP has the right to $612 large ones based on invalid patents - that you believe that the court can't change it's rulings based on new evidence. I'm not a lawyer but I can't believe that there is precedent that allows the court to ignore pertinent new facts in a case. If there is, I'd like to see the judge's reasoning behind his ruling that the patent rejections by the patent office are "a separate issue" and not pertinent to the case.
|
I never said the patents were valid, never said NTP should have been paid, never said $612.5M was a good number.
I am simply disagreeing with the "patent-squatting" meme.