Technology

58009 readers

2984 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

British inventor seeks to take $18bn bite out of Apple in bitter patent war (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 7 months ago by cashews_best_nut@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 4 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Ghostalmedia@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Maybe someone can EL5 this to me, but having looked at their patents from the other side of the pond, I just don’t get it.

It looks like the patent is a bunch of legal jargon that basically just says something to the tune of “save a key on in memory on a device, then use that key to validate purchases.” And is was granted in the late 2000’s.

How is this not a patent troll? Isn’t this stuff that existed before the patent was granted and an obvious solution that many engineers would easily come to?

What am I missing?

[–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

What am I missing?

The patent in question, if it's valid, would have expired several years ago. The fact that it's everyday technology today is pretty normal considering how fast technology advances. Ordinary toilet rolls were also a patented invention and there's nothing in the law that says a patent has to a complicated solution to a problem.

iTunes was the first shipping product that ever actually did what's described in the patent... and the person who ran the iTunes department that "invented" this feature was previously a subcontractor working for the guy who holds the patent - he was literally paid to implement what the patent described and then Apple poached him and he continued the work at his new job without any patent license.

I don't support patents and never will, but if there was ever a case for clear infringement then this is it. It's already been to court and apple was found guilty of patent infringement... only to have an appeals court overturn the decision in pretty questionable circumstances.

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The dude couldn’t implement his patent (downloading media with drm that’s unlocked by a key downloaded from a server). He hired others to do it. His business went defunct. Apple hired one of the former employees to work on something similar because of their expertise. Is that patent infringement?

If someone hires a former Facebook employee to work on their social network, is that patent infringement?

If the patent was obvious to begin with, and there is existing prior art, is that patent infringement?

[–] Tvkan@feddit.de 0 points 7 months ago

If someone hires a former Facebook employee to work on their social network, is that patent infringement?

No. If that employee then implements features that FB has patented? Probably yes.