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.

  • @FantasticFox
    link
    English
    311 months ago

    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.

    • @nivenkos
      link
      English
      111 months ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      011 months ago

      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.

      • @FantasticFox
        link
        English
        111 months ago

        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).

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          211 months ago

          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.

          • @FantasticFox
            link
            English
            111 months ago

            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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              011 months ago

              Again, just imagine basic math operation being proprietary and how it would help innovation.