• TheHalc@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      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.