5 ms·
I read that line as poking fun of the fact that RAM is not capitalized because the lawyers that wrote this think "ram" is a word, not an acronym
by rrss 5y ago
I read that line as poking fun of the fact that RAM is not capitalized because the lawyers that wrote this think "ram" is a word, not an acronym
- ohazi 5y agoEh, shrug. I don't think so. In any case, the fact that SparkFun doesn't even do semiconductor design makes this whole lawsuit even more ridiculous. They put chips onto boards, they don't design ALUs with special configurable control bits!
- URSpider94 5y agoIt actually doesn't matter if SparkFun designs chips. They do buy them, and re-sell them in devices. Patent law continues to apply to all downstream implementations of a product, until the claim is "exhausted" by a license. So, if the maker of the SoC doesn't have a license from this troll, then the troll is free to sue all of their customers, and in turn their customers, all the way down until someone pays up. It's a bit absurd to imagine, but if someone has a patent on a CPU design, which is then used in a radio, which is installed in a car, which is driven by a taxi driver, then the patent holder can in principle sue the taxi driver for using their radio without licensing the patent. In practice, patent trolls will figure out who they can sue who is big enough to extract $$, but not so big as to run the risk of them fighting back and invalidating the patent.
- ohazi 5y agoYeah I know that this is how it works, I just think it happens to be the worst possible way for it to work. If anything, pointing to the upstream manufacturer should be the end of it. The fact that someone can sue me over some proprietary implementation of something buried inside a chip I bought where the only way to defend myself is for me to go chase down NXP or ARM is indeed absurd.
- rytor718 5y agoI know nothing about patent law but this strikes me as false. I cannot be sued for turning on a radio in a vehicle that I bought or rented. I've never heard of a court thats accepted such frivolous claims either, nor of any law that asserts such. The manufacturer of that radio can possibly be downstream sued, sure. That sounds at least plausible if they're assembling said radio without proper license for the parts. But simply using a radio in my car doesn't strike me as something enforceable nor legitimate in any way. How do you figure a user downstream could be sued for not licensing a radio in a car they bought/rented? You're claiming we're all legitimate targets at this point in the eyes of the law (anyone using a radio in a car) so I'd like to understand this.
- URSpider94 5y agoAnyone who makes use of patented technology that has not been licensed by someone upstream can, indeed be sued, at least in principle. Consider the case of Innovatio, who tried to go after businesses who were providing WiFi for their customers by using routers that contained chips that contained potentially infringing circuitry. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/02/infamous-wi-fi-patent-troll-settles-peanuts https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/02/infamous-wi-fi-patent-... . The reason we don’t see more suits of end customers is that it’s not economically feasible - nobody would sue millions of consumers to collect $.10 each, when they can sue the upstream manufacturer just once and collect hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in royalties.
- caf 5y agoThat's exactly what I understood it to mean when I read it.
- mbreese 5y agoI read it the other way, but now that you mention it, this interpretation makes much more sense.