4 ms·
>I mean Netflix subscribers just got a worse service now. Your first points have merit but this is an odd point. Of course Netflix customers will get worse ser
by thinkingtoilet 3y ago
>I mean Netflix subscribers just got a worse service now.
Your first points have merit but this is an odd point. Of course Netflix customers will get worse service. If you start a business and succeed by illegally using someone else's patent then you (and your customers) should suffer from a legal decision.
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoThe whole point would be that Netflix would license the patents from Broadcom. Instead either Broadcom is blocking them to prevent their growth, or Netflix is trying to be greedy. Either way, nowhere here are patents helping or protecting citizens/consumers
- sigzero 3y ago> Either way, nowhere here are patents helping or protecting citizens/consumers Patents are for not for helping or protecting citizens/consumers. Patents are solely for protecting intellectual property.
- gosub100 3y agoMy (total guess) is that Broadcom is trying to be greedy, probably asking for a ridiculous sum that would make Netflix' use unprofitable.
- freejazz 3y agoOr maybe netflix is so cheap and run on the margins, that they can't afford to license the technology, which is why they tried using it for free...
- Kim_Bruning 3y agoThere's supposed to be an H.265 patent pool at the very least.
- freejazz 3y agoSo now we want to excuse Netflix's failure to perform due diligence?
- Kim_Bruning 3y agoSeeing the technology and the parties involved, I think it's reasonable to suspect some form of Patent Ambush [1]. Even if it's not strictly a patent ambush as per the definition, certainly it would have been more ...polite... for Broadcom to have disclosed their patents to MPEG earlier. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_ambush https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_ambush
- freejazz 3y agoPatents are public, it's all disclosed.
- Kim_Bruning 3y agoIf you've been reading the orange site for longer, you're probably familiar with the kinds of shenanigans people have been getting up to with video codecs. US law has relatively recently been amended to reduce the scope and scale of the shenanigans people can get up. But it has certainly not been historically true (within this century) that everything is disclosed, certainly not within the USA. Also, if you've read a few software patents, you'll probably see pretty quickly that disclosure alone doesn't mean much in this particular field. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_patent
- freejazz 3y agoI disagree with your assertion that "disclosure alone doesn't mean much in this particular field" and I generally do not find your comment responsive to what I wrote. It's incumbent upon a potential infringer to do their due diligence. Are you suggesting that reading the face of the asserted patent would somehow not indicate they were infringing? Upon what basis?