I agree with the cease and desist.

They claimed it was too difficult to go after the manufacturer that might be infringing on their patent so they went after the "easy" pickings.

Hinting at it in my first post here. China does what it wants. This benefits US consumers with lower priced goods. And is why some argue that Trump is all wrong for putting pressure on China. BUT... what the haters don't talk about are the US inventors, developers & industries that get SKah-Rooed by China's pirating everything.

So, this thread OP is a good one. Obvious rip-off of US IP. ...but said rip-off benefits the US (and world) consumers.

So where is the balance? Will US companies develop new tech when they know it will be ripped off? Or will they simply pursue non-additive rackets, like money manipulation and govt kick-backs?

thing is, the co.s sued by the Regents of UC will go after any importers, sellers in China, etc.

i.e. they will do that extra work

if it ain't legal for UC to sue these co.s then the judge will toss it

You can bet WM legsl is pounding on the suppliers. Once U of C notified them, prior to the lawsuit, they were on it. All suppliers must agree to an adhere to WM supplier policy. You can find the multi page policy on line. If they don't meet the set standards they get booted from the stores.

I still believe U of C should have filed suit against the suppliers/manufacturers.

sure, but this goes beyond getting booted from WMT - way beyond

I dunno why they didn't include the manfs. with the sellers - I suppose you could ask

maybe the judge will ask