Technology

60161 readers

3170 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

167

Google owes $338.7 mln in Chromecast patent case, US jury says (www.reuters.com)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s to c/technology

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Google owes $338.7 mln in Chromecast patent case, US jury says::Alphabet's Google violated a software developer's patent rights with its remote-streaming technology and must pay $338.7 million in damages, a federal jury in Waco, Texas decided on Friday.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] nivenkos 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah, I think the hardest part is that distinction though.

Like in software you have patents for one-click shopping, minigames in video game loading screens, etc. - those aren't hard-researched algorithms, they're ideas.

[–] wile_e8 0 points 1 year ago

I agree that those shouldn't be patented - they're ideas, not implementations. If you have a particular ingenious implementation for one-click shopping, go ahead and patent it. But don't sue people if they come up with a different way to do the same thing - that just means your implementation wasn't particularly novel.

So yes, there have been some bad software patents given out. That just means that the process for giving software patents needs to be reformed, not that we need to get rid of software patents.

[–] FantasticFox 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, I agree on those examples. They should be able to patent their particular implementation - like maybe it took a lot of R&D to work out how to get server response times fast enough for one-click to work, or to get loading times fast enough to have a mini-game in the loading screen etc.

But they shouldn't be able to patent the entire concept. That's ridiculous.

[–] nivenkos 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You copyright implementations though, not patent them - that is what software copyright is.

[–] FantasticFox 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, I guess it depends if the copyright is broad enough to offer protection while not becoming too broad and stopping innovation.