3 ms·
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 preferen
by 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 agoCrying 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 agoAlso 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 agoThere 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.