• Doomsider@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    20 hours ago

    Patents have become nothing more than a legal pretense for extortion. The system should absolutely be abolished as it currently stands.

  • NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 days ago

    Would be nice if the article had a link to the patent. Seems like a little journalistic effort would be worth it.

  • kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    3 days ago

    By the time Apple pays this, assuming they do. They will have made at least that much in extra profits from the original $5.7 billion by investing it.

    • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      Sure, but they also have to pay interest on the balance starting at the moment the judgement was entered.

        • FauxLiving@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          On one hand, you could almost certainly earn a higher return than the court requires you to pay in interest… but, if you had 5.7 billion dollars to invest in that kind of play then a plaintiff would likely succeed in getting a court order to force you to pay.

    • reddig33@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      How is this good news? Haptic feedback has existed since the 1970s. This patent should be invalid.

      • timochka@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        2 days ago

        The patent is not on haptic feedback. The patent is on a very specific means of implementing haptic feedback using ferrofluids and electromagnetic actuators that it is claimed (and Apple deemed it good enough to copy, so presumably truly) allows for both a smaller implementation than typical mechanical haptic feedback (i.e. the off-balance-flywheel approach of phones of old), while also allowing for low- or zero- noise compared to “speaker or piezo” based haptic feedback.

        There are a lot of shit patents in the world, but on a surface reading at least this seems sufficiently novel that I don’t see why it should be invalid. One also presumes that if Apple had any grounds to invalidate it on prior-art they would have done so.

        • reddig33@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 days ago

          So I looked into this and you are right and I am wrong. Deleting my previous posts since there’s more to this case than just haptics.

        • reddig33@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Rewarding a patent troll is never a good thing. It just means no one will be able to use haptic feedback without paying a toll.

            • Spur4383@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              2 days ago

              They have one headphone license for one model from crossair, that is worth less money that what they spent on lawyers for this trial. They are a patent troll.