• squaresinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I did not run out of arguments, I posted a contemporary source that said everything I talked about all along.

      While you keep repeating the same talking points that might maybe hold true today but certainly aren’t supported by anything contemporary. Repeating your points the same way all the time isn’t “having new arguments”. It’s “running out of arguments but not admitting to it”. And since you have been doing that in a loop for quite some time, there’s no point bringing new arguments apart from “a whole bunch of lawyers from the same time came to the same conclusion multiple times in a row”.

        • squaresinger@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          You haven’t provided any sources at all, you just ignored anything I said. So go, your turn. Post a source that says that transferring the patent to the university in 1923 was the wrong decision.

          If you know better than the lawyers they consulted back then, prove it. Back it up with something more than just made-up hot air.

          Obviously, the patent holders together with their legal council decided back then that it was the better choice because that’s what they did. Or are you argueing that it never happend because it’s on Wikipedia?