4 ms·

Here, let me help: 1. "Facebook approached Voxer about a potential collaboration that led to Voxer sharing its patents and proprietary information with the com

by ghusto 4y ago

Here, let me help: 1. "Facebook approached Voxer about a potential collaboration that led to Voxer sharing its patents and proprietary information with the company" 2. Facebook then said 'naaaaah' 3. Facebook then copied some of the technologies he'd shown them to both Facebook and Instagram The conclusion most people would draw is that Facebook is a piece of shit. Does that clarify things? Or would you like to keep suggesting that people here have double standards regarding software patents?

protomyth 4y ago
You missed the "Facebook revoked Voxer’s access to key components of the Facebook platform". That isn't a good look when you exclude the competition even if you own the platform. Ask Microsoft how well that works in court.
- yieldcrv 4y ago
  Its not an antitrust lawsuit its a patent infringement lawsuit in fact its the exact opposite of an antitrust lawsuit since patents themselves are a 20 year state-sanctioned monopoly
  - protomyth 4y ago
    Actions taken against a party factor into any lawsuit.
yieldcrv 4y ago
The question is whether you would hold the same opinion if the patent holder never made their own app at all Because since this is a patent lawsuit the existence of a video technology patent is all that matters Not the ways facebook did grimy actions This isnt fundamentally different than other software patent litigation threads, so yes I am suggesting a double standard and am here to confirm it
smsm42 4y ago
> that led to Voxer sharing its patents Wait what does this mean? Isn't the whole point of patents that it's supposed to be public? If so, how could you "share" them any more than you already did when publishing the patent?
harrisonjackson 4y ago
> copied some of the technologies That's the part people are disagreeing with. The patents are overly broad and the Judge is well-known for siding with patent trolls. So is Voxer patent trolling here? Does it matter because it is meta? Does their earlier meeting about the voxer app actually factor in to it?

by ghusto 4y ago

protomyth 4y ago

You missed the "Facebook revoked Voxer’s access to key components of the Facebook platform". That isn't a good look when you exclude the competition even if you own the platform. Ask Microsoft how well that works in court.

yieldcrv 4y ago
Its not an antitrust lawsuit its a patent infringement lawsuit in fact its the exact opposite of an antitrust lawsuit since patents themselves are a 20 year state-sanctioned monopoly
- protomyth 4y ago
  Actions taken against a party factor into any lawsuit.

yieldcrv 4y ago

The question is whether you would hold the same opinion if the patent holder never made their own app at all Because since this is a patent lawsuit the existence of a video technology patent is all that matters Not the ways facebook did grimy actions This isnt fundamentally different than other software patent litigation threads, so yes I am suggesting a double standard and am here to confirm it

smsm42 4y ago

> that led to Voxer sharing its patents Wait what does this mean? Isn't the whole point of patents that it's supposed to be public? If so, how could you "share" them any more than you already did when publishing the patent?

harrisonjackson 4y ago

> copied some of the technologies That's the part people are disagreeing with. The patents are overly broad and the Judge is well-known for siding with patent trolls. So is Voxer patent trolling here? Does it matter because it is meta? Does their earlier meeting about the voxer app actually factor in to it?