107
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TheHalc@sopuli.xyz 23 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Google doesn't need me to defend them, but the patents in question seem really generic and obvious...

Play control of content on a display device

Play control of content on a display device

Play control of content on a display device

All filed in 2011.

Patent trolls aren't the little guy, nor are they a good thing for the little guys out there.

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

The full patent goes into much more detail of the process: https://image-ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/8356251

Google didn't even argue that they didn't use this patented process. They tried (and failed) to argue that the patent was invalid.

[-] TheHalc@sopuli.xyz 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thanks for the link, but I already provided links to all three patents (confusingly, with the same names) that they were making claims on in my reply.

The thing about patents is that they are regularly granted for blindingly obvious processes that should never be patentable. It's not just companies like Google that get screwed by this, it's individual developers, FOSS projects... All sorts.

The patent system is fundamentally broken.

[-] TWeaK@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

Lmfao when I was looking at the Google links earlier (I found them myself in another comment) I didn't scroll down to the full text on their page...

I don't think this is blindingly obvious though. The obvious implementation would be to stream from the server to your phone, then your phone to the other screen. These patents detail a way of synchronising the devices and having the server stream directly to the screen, alongside your controlling device. That implementation might seem straightforward, but it is novel, if only because no one else had done it prior. If someone had done this prior to their application then maybe the patent could be invalidated, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

The patent system definitely has its flaws, but I don't think this patent is an example of that. They're not sitting on the patent doing nothing, they have their own implementations that they're selling, and were in negotiations with Google for them to use it. Google are just trying to get away without paying for things - just like they take our data and profit from that without paying us for producing it.

this post was submitted on 25 Jul 2023
107 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37728 readers
1053 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS