4 ms·

Broadcom Sues Netflix

17 points by karavelov 7y ago

karavelov 7y ago
Broadcom sues Netflix for its success: You’re stopping us making a fortune from set-top boxes, moans chip designer
rolph 7y ago
when broadcom is finished playing with stone knives and bear skins, then they can assume a modern distribution model and for what its worth i cut my cable a long time ago due to poor channel selection and content as well as all the graffitti that is plastered all over something that is supposed to be entertaining but becomes annoying like a child standing infront of the screen on purpose. if broadcom can address those issues im sure they can do well.
gentleman11 7y ago
This article is terrible. Somewhere in the middle they claim the actual claim is about patent infringement, not loss of income due to changing consumer preferences. (Yes, Patent trolling needs to be stopped)
- saxonww 7y ago
  Crying over revenue is what this lawsuit is really about, though, even if patent infringement is the cudgel. I don't really understand how Broadcom believes they can get anything out of this. Look at the cited patents: several of these were filed and/or granted before Netflix ever streamed a byte, and one of them expired last year. I'm not a patent lawyer, but I thought you had to defend your patents quickly and vigorously. Won't Broadcom have to explain why they sat on this for roughly a decade while Netflix evidently destroyed their market?
  - throw_away 7y ago
    Also not a lawyer, but I think that's trademark which must be vigorously defended. I believe patents have a six-year limit from infringement: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/286 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/286
    - siegel 7y ago
      There is a six-year statute of limitations on patent infringement claims. But there is a separate doctrine called "laches" that says that, notwithstanding any statute of limitations, if a plaintiff sits around on their rights, their lawsuit can be barred. But the Supreme Court recently held that laches was not a defense in statute of limitations cases. So, that wouldn't be an issue here.

17 points by karavelov 7y ago

Broadcom sues Netflix for its success: You’re stopping us making a fortune from set-top boxes, moans chip designer

when broadcom is finished playing with stone knives and bear skins, then they can assume a modern distribution model and for what its worth i cut my cable a long time ago due to poor channel selection and content as well as all the graffitti that is plastered all over something that is supposed to be entertaining but becomes annoying like a child standing infront of the screen on purpose. if broadcom can address those issues im sure they can do well.

gentleman11 7y ago

This article is terrible. Somewhere in the middle they claim the actual claim is about patent infringement, not loss of income due to changing consumer preferences. (Yes, Patent trolling needs to be stopped)

saxonww 7y ago
Crying over revenue is what this lawsuit is really about, though, even if patent infringement is the cudgel. I don't really understand how Broadcom believes they can get anything out of this. Look at the cited patents: several of these were filed and/or granted before Netflix ever streamed a byte, and one of them expired last year. I'm not a patent lawyer, but I thought you had to defend your patents quickly and vigorously. Won't Broadcom have to explain why they sat on this for roughly a decade while Netflix evidently destroyed their market?
- throw_away 7y ago
  Also not a lawyer, but I think that's trademark which must be vigorously defended. I believe patents have a six-year limit from infringement: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/286 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/286
  - siegel 7y ago
    There is a six-year statute of limitations on patent infringement claims. But there is a separate doctrine called "laches" that says that, notwithstanding any statute of limitations, if a plaintiff sits around on their rights, their lawsuit can be barred. But the Supreme Court recently held that laches was not a defense in statute of limitations cases. So, that wouldn't be an issue here.