5 ms·
Motorola beats attorney-owned patent company at trial over Bluetooth
- Ntrails 13y agoThe prior art had the bulk of the device attached significantly above the neck line which was not enough to render the patent invalid (paraphrased) I don't know how you write down in law the difference between an invention (something new) and a new product (doing something that's already been invented in a slightly different way). There has to be a way though right... right?
- wnight 13y agoNo. You can't draw useful lines when there are no useful distinctions.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ScottBurson 13y agoI think the way you do it is by requiring objective evidence of nonobviousness. I should write a blog post about this, but failing that, I refer you to a couple of my previous HN posts on it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5566382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5566382 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5483777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5483777 Also relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5563058 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5563058
- moron4hire 13y agoI don't think there is any such thing as a "good" patent, whether that is software or what most people would consider a "real invention". For one thing, there is no meaningful distinction between the two. For another, the patent system exists under the auspices of the common good, but the common good would be better served by the open sharing of ideas (PLUG! -> http://moron4hire.tumblr.com/post/50928032057/free-unused-ideas http://moron4hire.tumblr.com/post/50928032057/free-unused-id...).
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- moron4hire 13y agoBullshit strawman. There's no evidence to suggest that true innovators require any such protection to convince them to work on projects. And regardless of motivation, that sort of R&D effort is its own barrier to entry, you don't need a government granted monopoly.
- rayiner 13y agoI'm curious. What is your experience with "true innovators" in capital-intensive fields that makes you think that they don't need any protection from copying?
- chasb 13y agoFiled in 2005, granted in 2009. Doesn't seem like "actively working" on production to me. Surprise!
- arjn 13y agoThis title is misleading - the patent dispute is about the design and placement of the headset, not about Bluetooth itself.