4 ms·
Jury orders Google to pay $339M for patent-infringing Chromecast
- azurezyq 3y agoRegardless of the judge, I don't think a patent about a scenario, or mechanism like casting something to TV does anything good to the industry.
- jauntywundrkind 3y ago100%. Absolutely toxic shit that these idiot governments can grant abstract ideas & thought dominion by whatever idiot happened to write a vague patent application first. Another sad sad case where governments are actively de-legitimizing something I believe in: governance. There needs to be some real gains to roll back how overarchingly absurd software patents have become. You cannot patent thought & abstract ideas. What a horror this has become. But the situation will seemingly only ever en-mire itself, grow worse, create more constriction & difficulty, forever & ever. Thought cannot be patented, but here it is: disgraceful.
- justinclift 3y agoThere was a recent HN submission about Vacuum airships: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_airship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_airship His patent application was eventually denied on the basis that it was "wholly theoretical, everything being based upon calculation and nothing upon trial or demonstration." That patent denial was back in 1891. The "Good Old Days" for patents, from a modern tech users point of view. :)
- nwellinghoff 3y agoEh they might have a case here. You present an idea under nda and then the other party makes the same concept immediately? The small guy likely pursued this because google pissed them off “that much”. Never underestimate how much blatant disrespect can motivate another party to pursue you “because”. Or they could just be trolls
- e40 3y agoThe Western District of Texas again (always?).