4 ms·
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 th
by 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 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.