4 ms·
I’m holding judgement until the case is investigated further. It’s my understanding that so far everyone has basically said, “there’s enough evidence to proceed
by borgunit2 3y ago
I’m holding judgement until the case is investigated further. It’s my understanding that so far everyone has basically said, “there’s enough evidence to proceed in court.”
Patent reform is something that is sorely needed (and more funding for the USPTO).
Take for example this patent on an anti gravity device: https://www.nature.com/articles/438139a#:~:text=The%20US%20patent%20office%20has,defy%20the%20laws%20of%20physics https://www.nature.com/articles/438139a#:~:text=The%20US%20p....
And then there’s the patent troll problem. As a small shop, I am particularly afraid of trolls shutting us down overnight with basically no recourse.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- borgunit2 3y agoMy point was that anti-gravity clearly isn’t possible yet, but a patent was granted. By that logic, I could generate an AI application to patent all possible things. IMO something is wrong if this is allowed. It presents needless legal hurtles to people actually trying to innovate and produce tangible things.
- mc32 3y agoAs an outsider, it certainly looks like they “re-engineered” the other companies tech and introd into their devices.
- theturtletalks 3y agoDon’t they have to reverse engineer it in a clean room? Also, Masimo said they poached a lot of their talent who understood the patent and its uses.
- pclmulqdq 3y agoPatents can't be circumvented with the "Chinese wall" idea that happens with copyright-based reverse engineering. There is no alternative to licensing if you want to use a technology.
- theturtletalks 3y agoOh it’s for copyright only. So what legal standing does Apple have and why didn’t they just pay the licensing fee? Unless they wanted litigation to go after these type of patents being sealed off?
- pclmulqdq 3y agoApple can attack the patent as being invalid (and go for an IPR), they can argue that they are not infringing, or they can pay a license fee. My guess is that Apple was too cheap to pay an acceptable license fee, so they figured they could strongarm this company in court.
- sandworm101 3y ago>> As a small shop, I am particularly afraid of trolls shutting us down overnight with basically no recourse. I be more scared of non-trolls who own giant catalogues of patents. The giant companies will shut you down just as fast as any "troll". Try to invent any device with a touchscreen and an internet connection. It won't be trolls knocking on your door, but lawyers from Samsung, Apple and Microsoft.
- theturtletalks 3y agoHow do companies like FairPhone exist then?
- verall 3y agoI assume by a combination of: - Not a serious competitor - Based in Europe - Bad PR to shut down a company trying to create a cruelty-free smartphone
- borgunit2 3y agoWell we exist too, but it makes it a tiny bit harder to sleep at night having nightmares about trolls. Thankfully we haven’t been targeted. I do think a better system exists, and I’m all ears for any ideas around patent reform/USPTO funding.
- theturtletalks 3y agoWait so you and FairPhone could get sued by a patent for a small screen with internet?
- borgunit2 3y agoIANAL, but I feel like everything has basically been patented these days. The wording in many is so vague. They would probably be thrown out in court, but that takes time and money. Small startups have very little of either. I am really just pointing out that we need patent reform and better enforcement very badly.