Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 137 posts

Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom

#101

Post by wtallis »

bmdavi3 wrote: post #97
lilyball wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're confusing software patents and design patents, because the latter is what Apple famously used against Samsung.

Thank you. You're correct, I've wondered why this isn't mentioned more often, and maybe that's why. However even after realizing that, I personally still consider a design patent about rounded corners to be on the same level of B.S. as a software patent, and still stand by my conclusions. But I'd be interested to know why I shouldn't do that, and if you have more information I'm honestly all ears

Design patents are basically like trademarks. They're not meant to embody useful new inventions the way utility patents are, and they always involve a greater degree of subjectivity. Even if you believe Apple's iPhone design patents to have been too obvious and unoriginal to warrant protection, they aren't as an egregious perversion of the purpose of the law as the most notorious software patents.

Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom

#102

Post by loeg »

p1necone wrote: post #81
bsinger98 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely disagree. If I invent a new technology I should have the right to sell it. It is not fair for the inventor to create a novel technology only to have a huge corporation steal your idea. It is similar to China stealing US IP, it ruins the incentive to actually invent new ideas. If I create something novel, I deserve a short term monopoly so I can compete against established corporations. For example, look…

The problem seems to be that the bar for "novelty" in software patents is extremely low. (Amazon's patent on 1 click ordering is probably my favorite example).

My (least) favorite example is that Microsoft got at least 3 patents out of Exfat in the late 2000s for trivial extensions of FAT32, which incorporated long-public, in-no-way-novel techniques to FAT in basically the most obvious possible way to add the features. (Basically: hashed directory entries for speed of lookup; a single extent design that only works for 100% contiguous files; and a free bitmap.) These things were easily predated by the same techniques in, e.g., ext3 (2001) and classic Berkeley FFS from the 80s, but MSFT gets to prevent unlicensed 3rd party ExFAT implementations until 2029, if not further.

Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom

#103

Post by Retric »

strbean wrote: post #52
btilly wrote: post #24

This decision saddens me. I strongly believe that the pursuing of patents gets in the way of the collaboration that helps science progress. It creates evidence of innovation (ie patents), but slows actual innovation. Anything that gives universities more of an incentive to pursue the patent angle, which this judgment does, will therefore be bad for science. :-( (In CS, whole areas have become minefields for this reas…

> I strongly believe that the pursuing of patents gets in the way of the collaboration that helps science progress. It creates evidence of innovation (ie patents), but slows actual innovation. See the mess around CRISPR patents for an excellent example of this.

What’s crazy is universities don’t fund research. That’s a more central issue. They both directly profit from research and want to then own the results of that research, it’s a parasitic relationship with funding agencies.

Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom

#104

Post by loeg »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #65
coldpie wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If an individual has a novel idea they should be entitled to some of the money that a corporation makes using that idea. Absolutely not. Suppose I, Mr Independent Inventor, come up with some idea and convince the patent office to grant me a patent, and then proceed to do exactly nothing with it. Five years later, Ms Employed Engineer working at ABC Corp comes up with the same idea, and they manage to turn it into a…

You’re twisting the GP’s comment. They never said you should be able to sit on it; They said, if you invent it, you should get something. If it’s invented by two different people with no relation or knowledge of each other, the winner takes all approach is wrong. > Why on Earth am I owed any money for their work? And what about when ABC Corp steals Mr. Independent Inventor’s idea and makes millions on it? How is that…

> If it’s invented by two different people with no relation or knowledge of each other, the winner takes all approach is wrong.

Unfortunately, the US patent system is winner take all; i.e., wrong.

Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom

#106

Post by vkou »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #68
vkou wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why both sides bring in, and cross-examine experts to help the jury decide.

IMO you shouldn’t need experts; The jury should (in the first place) consist of people who understand the issue. Not people who are swayed by buzzwords.

If an industry is small enough, the only people who can understand an issue without expert testimony are people who are probably going to be highly biased, by virtue of working with one of the participants.

And regardless of the size of an industry, people who have a high understanding of an issue are likely to have preconceived biases about a dispute. Stuff a jury full of tech people, to resolve a tech issue, and odds are, an Anyone versus Oracle dispute is not going to have a fair trial, regardless of the merits of the case. Most tech people hate Oracle.

Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom

#107

Post by loeg »

_rpd wrote: post #20
egdod wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s a blurb with the patent numbers. https://patentlyo.com/patent/2020/01/billion-verdict-caltech...

"Serial concatenation of interleaved convolutional codes forming turbo-like codes"

Forward error correction is a patent minefield, so instead everyone just uses Reed-fucking-Solomon.

Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom

#108

Post by skosuri »

Retric wrote: post #103
strbean wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I strongly believe that the pursuing of patents gets in the way of the collaboration that helps science progress. It creates evidence of innovation (ie patents), but slows actual innovation. See the mess around CRISPR patents for an excellent example of this.

What’s crazy is universities don’t fund research. That’s a more central issue. They both directly profit from research and want to then own the results of that research, it’s a parasitic relationship with funding agencies.

They do. Most universities also rely on other sources to supplement research including donations, endowment spending, ip, and even tuition.

Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom

#109

Post by salawat »

bsinger98 wrote: post #45
btilly wrote: post #24

This decision saddens me. I strongly believe that the pursuing of patents gets in the way of the collaboration that helps science progress. It creates evidence of innovation (ie patents), but slows actual innovation. Anything that gives universities more of an incentive to pursue the patent angle, which this judgment does, will therefore be bad for science. :-( (In CS, whole areas have become minefields for this reas…

I completely disagree. If I invent a new technology I should have the right to sell it. It is not fair for the inventor to create a novel technology only to have a huge corporation steal your idea. It is similar to China stealing US IP, it ruins the incentive to actually invent new ideas. If I create something novel, I deserve a short term monopoly so I can compete against established corporations. For example, look…

You realize the Wright Brothers in particular are an absolutely horrible example of the patent system working right?

Their patent trolling is credited with setting back the development of the United States aviation industry for years.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war

So really, the only benefit is the actual patent ending up in the public domain, at the cost of further slowing down the field when someone ends up with patent rights assigned andisfeeling particularly litigous.

Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom

#110

Post by cma »

lilyball wrote: post #90
bmdavi3 wrote: post #88

If it were any other company I'd get depressed and say it's another victim of the tragedy of software patents. But Apple deserves every post-Creative Labs patent victory ruled against them. For anyone that doesn't know, in 2006 Apple was caught off guard and sued by Creative Labs over the iPod, resulting in a $100 million settlement. It was total nonsense and Jobs was right to be pissed, but what does he do? Does he…

I think you're confusing software patents and design patents, because the latter is what Apple famously used against Samsung.

They sure them for multitouch software as well didn't they?
Post reply on HN