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.

    • NateNate60@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • anlumo@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

      • nivenkos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • FantasticFox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Especially with software it’s rather clear that you don’t need copyright or patents for innovation, make everything open source and public domain.

            • anlumo@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Most open source software also relies on copyright. The GPL doesn’t work without it.

                • anlumo@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

            • FantasticFox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year 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.

              • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year 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@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 year 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).