91–100 of 137 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You beat me to it!
It’s honestly really sad that even _professional_ journalists don’t know how to spell it correctly :-(
I've never seen it spelled CalTech in anything from the university nor from any techer.
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…
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 own…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You beat me to it!
It’s honestly really sad that even _professional_ journalists don’t know how to spell it correctly :-(
> “We are pleased the jury found that Apple and Broadcom infringed Caltech patents,” CalTech said in a statement. “As a non-profit institution of higher education, Caltech is committed to protecting its intellectual property in furtherance of its mission to expand human knowledge and benefit society through research integrated with education.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
>Did CalTech's filing of this patent help Apple or Broadcom's engineers create their devices? No but Apple's patent for rounded corners didn't help Samsung engineers from creating their devices...and yet Apple filed the patent and sued Samsung for patent infringement. Caltech should be championed for trolling a troll.
It's unfortunate that this story has now been twisted into "Apple suing Samsung over rounded corners", when in actuality Samsung deliberately produced a 132-page report comparing the iPhone to their current phones at the time and pointed out hundreds of features and design elements they should steal from the iPhone user interface.
https://archive.org/details/436142-samsung-relative-evaluati...
If you read through the report it's pretty blatant and goes well beyond "rounded corners".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Did CalTech's filing of this patent help Apple or Broadcom's engineers create their devices? No but Apple's patent for rounded corners didn't help Samsung engineers from creating their devices...and yet Apple filed the patent and sued Samsung for patent infringement. Caltech should be championed for trolling a troll.
If Caltech ever framed their lawsuit in those terms, I would agree with you. I doubt they have. Caltech clearly has a history of patent trolling. https://www.law360.com/articles/652442/dish-hughes-escape-so... https://www.reuters.com/article/intuitivesurgical-lawsuit-id... https://www.zdnet.com/article/sony-settles-digital-camera-la...
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…
Put them in the same class as Oracle as far as I'm concerned. After it happened I swore off developing another piece of software for Apple or supporting any of their products.
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.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Caltech ever framed their lawsuit in those terms, I would agree with you. I doubt they have. Caltech clearly has a history of patent trolling. https://www.law360.com/articles/652442/dish-hughes-escape-so... https://www.reuters.com/article/intuitivesurgical-lawsuit-id... https://www.zdnet.com/article/sony-settles-digital-camera-la...
You don't seem to use the common definition of a patent troll. Caltech very clearly is in the business of inventing real, new technology. You can disagree with their filing of infringement lawsuits, but they're not a troll in the way the typical NPE is.
It's especially absurd that 4x damages were awarded against Apple here when Apple is just a customer of the allegedly infringing party. 4/5 of Broadcom's customers were not assessed damages — why pick on Apple in particular? (I mean, we all know why — they have cash.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 own…
This assumes you can make a reasonable estimation of the commercial value of the patent at filing time, which is unlikely.
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
https://archive.org/details/436142-samsung-relative-evaluati...
I don't have a great opinion of the patent industry in general but in this situation Samsung's behavior was pretty blatant and unethical (IMO), and went well beyond "rounded corners".