Google owes $338.7 mln in Chromecast patent case, US jury says
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.
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're viewing a single thread.
Software patents shouldn't exist. You can't patent the idea of doing something.
You weren't supposed to be able to protect the mere idea of something. Software copyright I fully support but patents are revolting. At least the expire after a while whereas copyright lasts way too long.
It makes a bit of sense for physical inventions where the process is the most important part. Whereas for software the actual code is really that process (and covered by copyright), rather than just the idea.
But it's trivial to write a slightly different implementation of something.
I think one really has to consider what the effect on innovation will be - you don't want too many protections as that will stifle innovation as it prevents people from building upon the prior ideas, but equally you don't want no protection at all as that will discourage innovation as R&D takes money, so if you can't recoup the investment the money simply won't get invested into R&D and the innovation won't happen.
Especially with software it's rather clear that you don't need copyright or patents for innovation, make everything open source and public domain.
Yeah, I think with software due to the low barrier to entry etc. it makes sense for it to be further towards the less protections end of the spectrum.
But still, if you'd paid a load of PhDs to come up with some really clever algorithm (think of like how Shazam had it's music recognition algorithm long, long before modern ML) and then someone could just steal it well, it'd harm innovation and ultimately the tech industry and investment would go elsewhere and those clever PhD grads just wouldn't find employment.
It's a balance that depends on the properties of each industry, but I don't think that no protections whatsoever is ever a good answer.
The Shazam thing is a bad example though as the patent is still valid even when nowadays it's a solved problem. So it should be much shorter duration.
Why would people do anything without clear financial gain. Written on lemmy. Or just think of science, imagine fundamental science not being public domain, that would suck.
Yeah, but some things cost a lot of money to develop. The higher the cost of the R&D, the less likely it is to occur without some patent system. Although I agree that in programming specifically the Open Source model seems to work quite well - look at the Apache Foundation.
You could have a model where all research was done by a public body or something like the Apache Foundation, but this reduces innovation as it means there is less opportunity for some people to try something that may not be considered likely to be successful, as publicly funded research tends to focus on the safest path. For an example, look at how public nuclear fusion research is continuing on the traditional toroidal tokamak model with ITER compared with the more experimental designs being tested by private companies such as Helion, Focus Fusion, Tokamak Energy (they are using a high aspect-ratio 'spherical tokamak).
Again, take a look at fundamental science. I don't buy the argument that free flow of information will stiffen innovation, quite sure it's the opposite. Right now it seems that patents are just a way for big players to control the market, since they can buy patents, just pay a licence fee or hire an army of lawyers. Imagine a world where basic math operations would be patented - we basically live in this world.
Fundamental science is mostly publicly funded though and has little immediate practical application. The lack of funding in much of science also shows the problems this approach has.
Again, just imagine basic math operation being proprietary and how it would help innovation.
Most open source software also relies on copyright. The GPL doesn’t work without it.
Obviously you would need a complete overhaul of the system.
That's why I'm not in favor of completely abolishing copyright. It should protect for a much shorter time, like 10 years, though. For example, companies would be free to use a ten years old Linux version (3.10 would be the newest affected version) and do whatever they want with it, but for newer ones the GPL protections would still apply.
I'm more radical, I'm for removing copyright and forced open source.
I think patents make some sense for software, if you patent a particular algorithm you developed for doing something useful. An example I always use for a good software patent is Google's original PageRank algorithm - it was a specific algorithm that provided significantly better search results than existing search algorithms. But that patent just covered one specific algorithm for ranking search results, not the idea of searching the web (which was around before Google). Patents that are given for an idea, not an implementation, are bad.
This article is unclear, but it sure makes it seem like this patent was given for the idea of sending video from one device to another, not a specific algorithm for doing so. So that would be a bad patent. But I don't think it means we should get rid of software patents altogether.
But we don't let people patent just mathematics.
So it's this weird thing where you can patent it as long as you make it an algorithm somewhere.
From a certain point of view, everything is mathematics. It still takes time and effort to figure out the mathematics to make new things work. Patents guarantee that the people who figure out the math will be able to profit off of it before a whole bunch of copycats steal the work. That should apply to software too - assuming that people actually figured out the math and didn't just patent some idea without an implementation.
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.
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.
You copyright implementations though, not patent them - that is what software copyright is.
Yeah, I guess it depends if the copyright is broad enough to offer protection while not becoming too broad and stopping innovation.
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.
Yes, 10 years of copyright protection would be plenty enough for software. After 10 years your code is legacy anyways, and it'd help with preserving old software like classic games.
(laughs in Big Pharma)