CalTech wins $1.1B jury verdict in patent case against Apple, Broadcom • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by egdod » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 1:08 AM UTC

rudedogg wrote: post #48

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…

> If I create something novel, I deserve a short term monopoly so I can compete against established corporations. I agree, but I don't think the current patent system does this. I think the length of patents should be reduced dramatically, 5 years sounds reasonable. It's crazy when you think about how patents last for 20 years, which doesn't really work with the current pace of technology IMO (as an example, the iPho…

It’s not at all unheard of for a patent to take 5 years to be granted. Do those folks just lose out? Or do we base patent term on issue date instead of filing date? (NB: it used to be that way, and it invited all sorts of gamesmanship.)

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

#72

Post by egdod » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 1:11 AM UTC

stefan_ wrote: post #53

pasttense01 wrote: post #2

The issues here are simply too complicated for juries to decide--particularly the amounts of money. If Apple was simply using devices it purchased from Broadcom, Broadcom should be responsible for all the damages.

There are tons of ways to avoid a jury panel. You find any sort of prior art and patents, along with any suits, simply vanish; you file a challenge with the patent office for reexamination, an expert there decides it's invalid, the case disappears.

That’s highly nontrivial. (And by the way, almost no one uses reexam anymore. It’s all about IPR these days.)

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

#73

Post by egdod » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 1:12 AM UTC

Paul-ish wrote: post #16

pasttense01 wrote: post #2

The issues here are simply too complicated for juries to decide--particularly the amounts of money. If Apple was simply using devices it purchased from Broadcom, Broadcom should be responsible for all the damages.

I wonder what a "jury of peers" would look like in these cases.

That actually refers to criminal cases, not civil.

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

#74

Post by zzzzzzzza » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 1:27 AM UTC

msla wrote: post #57

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 agree that research institutions shouldn't pursue patents, but I think patents in general have some value, because they discourage companies from relying on trade secrets, which used to be the norm, and is why certain ancient and medieval inventions were lost once the guilds dissolved and took their trade secrets with them.

how do we know trade secrets would be as effective today?

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

#75

Post by elkos » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 1:39 AM UTC

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.

Was the bulk of CRISPR research mostly funded by private emtities or was it government funding in EU, US and others? Where the private emtities even going to undertake CRISPR research if there was no public funding?

Would be interesting to see a study that showcases which was the major factor to research on that field is.

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

#76

Post by BalinKing » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 1:45 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #31

artemisyna wrote: post #21

Cause someone will make this comment eventually: "Caltech" not "CalTech". :)

You beat me to it!

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

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

#77

Post by alasdair_ » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 1:49 AM UTC

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…

I agree somewhat. The problem is that there are so many bullshit patents in the world that mostly just create a minefield for those trying to create new things.

A proposal (in “Radical Markets”) I agree with is to charge a property tax of, say, 2% for each year that a patent holder wants to keep the patent. The value of the patent is whatever the owner decides it should be but (to prevent claims of $1 values) the owner must sell the patent to the first entity willing to pay more than the declared value.

This, in theory, would ensure that only patents that were genuinely useful would be kept around rather than being used as tools to stifle innovation or rent seek for those that actually create great works.

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

#78

Post by BalinKing » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 1:53 AM UTC

selimthegrim wrote: post #33

sitkack wrote: post #4

That could fund a couple of sweet astrophysics experiments.

Or free tuition for undergrads

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...

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

#79

Post by BalinKing » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 1:55 AM UTC

BalinKing wrote: post #78

selimthegrim wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or free tuition for undergrads

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).

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

#80

Post by dylan604 » Fri, Jan 31, 2020, 1:58 AM UTC

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…

Is this why we don't have any progress in the wavelet world? When I first heard about wavelet compression, it was supposed to be so much more impressive than DCT based algorithms. The only wavelet encoder I'm familiar with is JPEG2000, and it's adoption has not really been too wide.

Are the patents for wavelet more oppressive than H.26[4-5]?