5 ms·
This ruling did not survive on appeal: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5420885724600138871 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=54208857246
by josaka 4y ago
This ruling did not survive on appeal: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5420885724600138871 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=542088572460013...
- rektide 4y agoWhich feels insane. It feels like there's no constraints, no restrictions on what's allowed to keep down competition.
- lazide 4y agoPatents are time limited, then go into the public domain for this reason.
- hedora 4y agoThe USPTO makes it easy to re-patent things after expiration.
- paulryanrogers 4y agoTechnically doesn't it require some new innovation? And the original patent itself still enters the public domain?
- rektide 4y agoA vast part of problem is that the people deciding aren't adequately technical, can't judge the non-obvious clause adequately. Making up some faint new claim, that so happens to largely encompasses the existing claim, feels all too regular. There's just so few people fit to judge, to appropriately decide to award or not award another decade or so of monopoly to a patent.
- nceqs3 4y agoThis is categorically false.
- rektide 4y ago20 years of complete & total control of an industry is way way way too long. If we're going to allow what Qualcomm did, it should be 5 years, absolute tops, probably less. This is just so proper fucked, such a messed up manipulation. And I agree- it does look legal. The law debases itself, delegitimizes itself, brings shame to itself by permitting this unbelievable horseshit. Which, as others elsewhere have pointed out, is what was allowed: this ruling got appealed & overturned. Qualcomm got away with being a tyrant & ruining an industry.
- hackernewds 4y agoIt seems you agree with the beneficial premise of patents. But you disagree about the degree of that benefit. Why 5? Why not 2 years? Or 8 years? The same argument could be used to support or known down either option.
- rektide 4y ago5 years is a long long time to dictate to the world your terms. You've had a chance to make a huge impact after 5 years. If the current system, especially where no courts defend a RAND premise (reasonable and non-disciminatory), 5 years is a vast amount of human life where progress may be kept in stasis. Humanity deserves to not be trapped for even 5 years, but hopefully the limit compels action even earlier. In general, I think information-theory and software patents are also highly highly highly bullshit & everyone involved with this unethical & immoral practice should probably be shot into the sun.
- lodovic 4y agoThis would enable major players to stall you for five years (mainly with lawsuits) and wait until your patent has expired. Five years is just too short.
- rektide 4y agoMeh I doubt it. Five years is a long time. If it's going to be longer, patents need mandatory needs Fair Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory licensing. 20 years is insane, even with FRAND.
- mtgx 4y ago
- wmf 4y agoEnjoy your EDGE phone.
- ceeplusplus 4y agoThe US has an interest in keeping down (international) competition though. When Huawei started becoming competitive and/or better than Qualcomm, Ericsson, and all the other 5G players, the US sanctioned them to death. Europe is basically an American client state so for geopolitical purposes they're not really any different from Qualcomm.
- ksec 4y agoI suggest you should actually read the 233 report, or some of the explanation as to why in the previous discussions. There is nothing insane about it.