Oh no, not copilot!
this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
744 points (98.9% liked)
Technology
58983 readers
7402 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Anyway…
Tech patents are ridiculous. Let's end them or reduce them to 1-3 years with no renewal. Then all that's left is the specific copyright to the technology, not lingering webs of patents that don't make any sense anyway to anyone with detailed knowledge of the tech. All they're good for is big companies using legal methods to stop innovation and competition. Tech moves too fast for long patents and is too complex for patent examiners or courts to understand what is really patentable. So it comes down to who has the most money for lawyers.
Seeing things like "slide to unlock", "rounded corners", and "scroll bouncing" are all patentable is ridiculous.
Yeah, but another big issue is that big companies can afford to bribe or buy out the patent holders in the first place. Ideally, the patent holders would benefit the most from everyone making their tech, but instead they benefit the most from one company being the exclusive manufacturer and highest bidder.
The act of an agreement asking a patent holder not to sell to other manufacturers in itself should be illegal.
Yeah, making patents nontransferable would solve that. Ultimately, getting rid of most would be good, but if we have to keep them, then they should be dissolved if a company fails or is bought out because obviously the patent itself wasn't enough to make a product that was viable. So everyone should get the chance to use the patent. The whole purpose of a patent vs keeping tech proprietary until the product is released was to benefit society once the patent expires. Otherwise, it makes more sense for companies to keep inventions secret if they aren't just stockpiling them like they do now.
Good. Qualcomm refuses to make it easy to run linux on their hardware. Instead they try to hide basic information about their processors and chips in the name of selling a license for every little thing.
And so is Arm, especially their Mali drivers.
While some go "um, ackchually, you don't need a GPU driver for your hobby project of using a cheap SBC to run emulators", it does affect usability a lot. Yeah, Arm also pointing at the licensors and so are licensors to Arm in this case, but it's still not good that the only SBCs with relatively good GPU drivers for Linux are made by Raspberry Pi, and in all other case, you either need to pirate the drivers (!), use the tool that allows regular Linux to use Android GPU drivers, or just use the framebuffer-only driver with heavy limitations.
I agree.
I hope this isn't a cartoony scheme driven by Apple honeydicking Arm with the M-series processors to tank PC and Android.
Arm owner softbank wants more mulah, want line goes up.
Qualcomm thinks this is not allowed in their license contract.
Without having read the contract, I think Qualcomm has a strong case, seams arm wants this to be settled before court in December. Qualcomm also thinks they have a strong case, so they say let the courts begin.
But it doesn't matter if it's an American court, because Qualcomm is American, softbank is Asian, arm is European. So, you have home turf advantage
So typical capitalism horseshit.
Go RISC-V phones please!! Omg. I really hope RISC-V goes mainstream because of this.
While every comment here seems to scream "end patents", arm has less patent bs than other tech (rounded corners) meant to sue/prevent use. Arm works hard on developing and improving architecture and designs to offer licenses at a compelling price. Qualcomm paying as much as other licensees should be preferable to Qualcomm than bankruptcy.
Truly yes, but RISC-V.
Yeah. The crowd rooting for Qualcomm has never worked with them
ARM has it's problems, but they aren't in the wrong here
Qualcomm paying as much as other licensees should be preferable to Qualcomm than bankruptcy.
Not saying this is wrong, but where do you get it from? The article just states that ARM considers Qualcomm's acquisition of Nuvia a breach of license. Both companies held ARM licenses before. What's the issue with such a purchase?
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›