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

111–120 of 137 posts

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

#111

Post by grecy »

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…

> It was total nonsense and Jobs was right to be pissed, but what does he do? Does he get fired up to bring about patent reform? No! He doubles down on software patents himself and goes on to sue Samsung in the same shitty way in 2011.

I realize Jobs and Apple were/are big, but what makes you think he had any hope in hell of doing anything about patent reform?

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

#112

Post by gowld »

dev_tty01 wrote: post #61
amelius wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But in this case, a research institution is getting more money, presumably to be able to fund further research. Yes, research that can't be used for reasonable amounts of money, and therefore out of reach for startups.

Sorry, but your comment is completely wrong. https://innovation.caltech.edu/startups/

Those are Caltech startups, not other startups using Caltech inventions.

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

#113

Post by refurb »

egdod wrote: post #70
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.

See the motivation to fund CRISPR research for a counterpoint.

You’re getting downvoted, but I agree.

At least in biotech, patents drive a ton investment. How else do you get companies with billion dollar series A’s?

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

#114

Post by Aperocky »

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…

What happen if I create an algorithm and then put it up with GPL? Can someone sue me for just writing code?

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

#115

Post by brokensegue »

WalterBright wrote: post #91
BalinKing wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s honestly really sad that even _professional_ journalists don’t know how to spell it correctly :-(

https://www.caltech.edu/ tells the tale. I've never seen it spelled CalTech in anything from the university nor from any techer.

"CalTech" used to be correct

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

#116

Post by bhl »

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.

The CRISPR debacle is a funny story because on one side you have a public institution and on the other side you have a private institution.

However, both in reality are publicly funded whether that be through government grants or tax breaks on endowments. I think we should do a trade: an institution that in someway benefits from the public should get credit for the discovery but patent goes back to the public.

Edit: I realize there’s a chance that whatever I just said, there’s a small European country that already has implemented this idea.

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

#117

Post by bhl »

BalinKing wrote: post #79
BalinKing wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The popular observation (truthful joke?) on campus is that they could give a full ride to 15 consecutive classes of undergrads with all that money...

With that said, though, Caltech does provide significant need-based financial aid (gotta give credit where credit’s due, after all).

I remember this from a previous conversation on (what I think was) NYU medical school being tuition free for an incoming class, and that drove the admission rate way down because with no tuition, it got super competitive. I wonder if there’s a good trade off between competition and the amount of needs based tuition.

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

#118

Post by yalok »

Aperocky wrote: post #114
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…

What happen if I create an algorithm and then put it up with GPL? Can someone sue me for just writing code?

Patents and code licensing rights are not related. You may release your code under GPL and if it violates some patent, the owner may sue you or whoever uses your code.

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

#119

Post by reissbaker »

btilly wrote: post #28
rileymat2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in this case, a research institution is getting more money, presumably to be able to fund further research. It seems like a perfect counter example of what your worries are about slowing progress.

I bet that the money that they get will largely go to lawyers, administration, and increased efforts around finding/litigating patents on current research. I am extremely dubious that it will result in research that advances the state of science. Science flourishes best when you share results and hypotheses early and often, then get feedback/inspire others. But that type of communication threatens patents, so inspire…

"But that type of communication threatens patents..."

Patents, for all their downsides, are designed to get scientists to share results. Without patents you have enormous disincentive to sharing repeatable results: you can't charge money for it if anyone can go and copy you. With patents, you can freely share results and still charge money.

Should patents last as long as they do? Should there be a cap on how much companies can charge for patented medicine, since it's effectively a temporary government-granted monopoly on curing disease? All reasonable questions, but I don't think abolishing (non-software) patents would improve communication between scientists.

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

#120

Post by HHest »

brokensegue wrote: post #115
WalterBright wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.caltech.edu/ tells the tale. I've never seen it spelled CalTech in anything from the university nor from any techer.

"CalTech" used to be correct

Reference?
Post reply on HN