1 yr. ago • 100%

Google owes $338.7 mln in Chromecast patent case, US jury says

www.reuters.com 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.

Technology @beehaw.org Google owes $338.7 mln in Chromecast patent case, US jury says

35 comments

Software patents shouldn't exist. You can't patent the idea of doing something.

66
- 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.
  
  27
  
  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.
  
  11
  
  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.
  
  6
  
  (laughs in Big Pharma)
  
  1
Fucking hate patent trolls.

24
- You mean those who met with Google and then Google stole their technology? Feels shill man.
  
  10
  
  Not to defend the gigacorp who either didn't look for or didn't care to pay for tech that someone already created and they ended up using in a product, parralel development happens and it could be an oversite, but non-practicing entities are leeches of the highest order.
  
  Will have to read in on the nature of the case more to see what was used and who got paid here, but groups that just sit around on a bunch of shakey over-broad patents with no intent to actualy implement them in any meaningful way need to have them stripped. All they do is hold up developments in the hope of getting a payout with no benefit to society.
  
  https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/07/jury-orders-google-to-pay-339m-for-patent-infringing-chromecast/
  
  For a bit more technical readout on the nature of the case, this does sound pretty fishy as a claim. The party getting damages has no product and the patents are all kind of hand-wavey 'make one device tell a server to give a command to another device' in nature. Of course the case was handled in TX too which has a penchant for being patent maximalists.
  
  27
Texas courts are the favorite venue for most patent claims. Mostly because they suck at technology and give it up for a plaintiff.

13
- Texas Instruments is preparing a case against your comment.
  
  7
  
  Point proven!
  
  2
said in its 2021 lawsuit that founder David Strober invented technology in 2010 to "move" videos from a small device like a smartphone to a larger device like a television.

What the fuck? lmao. How is this able to be patented?

8
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't DLNA basically prior art for this patent?

3

You've viewed 35 comments.