Cause someone will make this comment eventually: "Caltech" not "CalTech". :)
You beat me to it!
CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom
31–40 of 137 posts
Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom
#32This 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…
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.
> 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.
Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom
#33That could fund a couple of sweet astrophysics experiments.
Or free tuition for undergrads
Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom
#34Live by the sword, die by the sword. I wonder when Apple, Broadcom, etc., will have enough of these pyrrhic patent lawsuit victories and start lobbying for an end, or at least a major curtailment, of the patent system.
Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom
#35This 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 personally think that patents are necessary to promote independent (i.e. non-corporate) innovation. If an individual has a novel idea they should be entitled to some of the money that a corporation makes using that idea.
Of course, the US patent system is pretty deeply flawed. I participated in a study involving patent infringement allegations between two big companies, and my opinion was consistently "Why was this patent approved?"
Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom
#36If the patents were owned by a single individual instead of caltech, would the verdict be as large? They’d instantly be in the top 3000 richest people in the world.
The Caltech endowment fund seems to be $3.2B. It seems like they're already pretty rich... and I suspect that lets them actually pursue these cases successfully.
Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom
#37Live by the sword, die by the sword. I wonder when Apple, Broadcom, etc., will have enough of these pyrrhic patent lawsuit victories and start lobbying for an end, or at least a major curtailment, of the patent system.
Why would Apple care? A billion dollars to them is a speeding ticket. It hurts smaller companies more. One hostile patent lawsuit can tank a startup or sink a small, established company that can't afford to fend it off.
It's the smaller companies that should care and lobby as a collective.
Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom
#38I.e. Broadcom stole Caltech patents and didn't pay royalties. Apple uses Broadcom chips (like many others). So they'll pay too.
Shouldn't Broadcom be solely responsible for this? If apple buys a product, why would apple be responsible for details that went into the hardware on BC's end? Not trying to troll - but genuinely trying to understand the logic/law here.
Then there would be a loophole where you make an independent entity that “makes” something that shields infinite liability. It makes sense to go after all beneficiary owners and parties.
Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom
#39This 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 thought this was an interesting take on intellectual property/patents i.e. “gongkai”:
Re: CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom
#40This 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…
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.
Did CalTech's filing of this patent help Apple or Broadcom's engineers create their devices? I sincerely doubt it. This is just patent trolling, and Caltech should be shamed for it.