3 ms·

This is misleading - Apple previously invested in IV.

by Bahamut 13y ago

micampe 13y ago
First paragraph: Intellectual Ventures (IV) is seeking a major new investment to expand its controversial patent trolling operations but, unlike on past occasions, Apple is not coming along for the ride.
simonh 13y ago
> ...unlike on past occasions, Apple is not coming along for the ride. What's misleading about that? Did you read the article?
- Bahamut 13y ago
  I did. The title of the article is what is misleading, as if Apple chose to not fund IV for the first time.
  - LeoNatan25 13y ago
    Admit it, you read just the title. ;-) April 1 no more: https://www.facebook.com/NPR/posts/10202059501509428?stream_ref=10 https://www.facebook.com/NPR/posts/10202059501509428?stream_...
    - Bahamut 13y ago
      I almost never comment on articles unless I've read it completely (although a few days ago I rightfully got downvoted for incorrect comments, partly due to not reading the link) - I'm against hasty judgment in general. That said, my point still stands. The title does not accurately reflect the content of the article. A more accurate title would be "Apple declines to increase their funding for patent troll Intellectual Ventures" Edited for more informative title
      - veemjeem 13y ago
        That title would still be inaccurate because it would imply that Apple is currently funding IV, and will not increase their funding. Just because Apple gave them money in the past doesn't mean they are continuing to fund them either. It just seems to me that you have difficulty accepting other commenter's criticisms and would rather just believe that you've been right all along. Why is it that many hackers have this superiority complex that causes them act like this? I see this type of scenario in our industry all the time. Hackers would rather see themselves as correct from a different angle rather than accepting fault seen from everyone else's perspective.
        Bahamut 13y ago
        The article says nothing about the funding stopping completely, just funding a new round, hence my edit which originally said stop funding, which is incorrect. I'm not sure what is difficult to understand here about the main point that the title is inaccurate - there wasn't even an attempt to refute the explanation.

This is misleading - Apple previously invested in IV.

by Bahamut 13y ago

This is misleading - Apple previously invested in IV.

First paragraph: Intellectual Ventures (IV) is seeking a major new investment to expand its controversial patent trolling operations but, unlike on past occasions, Apple is not coming along for the ride.

simonh 13y ago

> ...unlike on past occasions, Apple is not coming along for the ride. What's misleading about that? Did you read the article?

Bahamut 13y ago
I did. The title of the article is what is misleading, as if Apple chose to not fund IV for the first time.
- LeoNatan25 13y ago
  Admit it, you read just the title. ;-) April 1 no more: https://www.facebook.com/NPR/posts/10202059501509428?stream_ref=10 https://www.facebook.com/NPR/posts/10202059501509428?stream_...
  - Bahamut 13y ago
    I almost never comment on articles unless I've read it completely (although a few days ago I rightfully got downvoted for incorrect comments, partly due to not reading the link) - I'm against hasty judgment in general. That said, my point still stands. The title does not accurately reflect the content of the article. A more accurate title would be "Apple declines to increase their funding for patent troll Intellectual Ventures" Edited for more informative title
    - veemjeem 13y ago
      That title would still be inaccurate because it would imply that Apple is currently funding IV, and will not increase their funding. Just because Apple gave them money in the past doesn't mean they are continuing to fund them either. It just seems to me that you have difficulty accepting other commenter's criticisms and would rather just believe that you've been right all along. Why is it that many hackers have this superiority complex that causes them act like this? I see this type of scenario in our industry all the time. Hackers would rather see themselves as correct from a different angle rather than accepting fault seen from everyone else's perspective.
      - Bahamut 13y ago
        The article says nothing about the funding stopping completely, just funding a new round, hence my edit which originally said stop funding, which is incorrect. I'm not sure what is difficult to understand here about the main point that the title is inaccurate - there wasn't even an attempt to refute the explanation.