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

81–90 of 137 posts

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

#81

Post by p1necone »

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…

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).

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

#82

Post by choward »

egdod wrote: post #71
rudedogg wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

Maybe if they only lasted five years there wouldn't be as many applications since they wouldn't be as valuable so processing could be faster.

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

#83

Post by mirimir »

btilly wrote: post #41
WalterBright wrote: post #34

Live 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.

According to economic theory, the ability of a company to sustain profits in the long term is based on having barriers to entry to their market. This kind of patent threat is a barrier to entry, and suffering on the losing end of them is rent on the profit margin that they have been able to sustain. Therefore, even with these losses, the patent system is worthwhile for them.

True. But barriers to market entry is also a prong for establishing monopoly power. So it cuts both ways.

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

#84

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

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…

If you invent a new technology as part of a grant funded by my tax dollars, it's much less clear.

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

#85

Post by yalogin »

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…

How about patents created by public universities should automatically be in the public domain so every one benefits. After all, they are government funded.

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

#86

Post by basementcat »

yalogin wrote: post #85
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…

How about patents created by public universities should automatically be in the public domain so every one benefits. After all, they are government funded.

This used to be the case until the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act

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

#88

Post by bmdavi3 »

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 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 mean, it's too late now to turn the ship around on software patents. It's never going to change. But 2006 - 2011 were prime growth years for Apple, where they could have made a great case to the public for how software patents were bad and used in a totally bogus way against a well liked American company.

And if he didn't want to do that, he could have built up a library of patents to squirrel away for defensive purposes on a rainy day.

But no. He got burned by Creative Labs, hated the experience, and turned around and did the same exact thing to a totally unrelated company.

When it comes to software patents, fuck Steve Jobs and Apple.

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/10/creative-pushed-stev...

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

#90

Post by lilyball »

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.
Post reply on HN