upvote

points

by xxpor2 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby Palomides2 hours ago|
next
[-]
no, a patent is exclusive right to implement, you can't get around it by reverse engineering

the tradeoff is that it becomes free eventually, unlike trade secrets

reply
upvoteby xxpor2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Yes, but they're arguing in the letter that the work is _also_ disclosing information that would allow their competitors to know how DisplayLink works. You can't have it both ways.
reply
upvoteby kube-system1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Yeah, that statement clearly is making IP claims beyond patent infringement, they just didn't elaborate. They didn't say it's patent infringement because of that.
reply
upvoteby zarzavat23 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Merely reverse engineering for interoperability is not a violation of any type of IP in the US.
reply
upvoteby kube-system5 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm not saying their arguments are valid. It's a demand letter with multiple claims. There's many reasons it might be an invalid argument but listing more than one grievance and/or not explaining them in detail are not some of those reasons.
reply
upvoteby ssl-31 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
A thing can be encumbered by both patents and trade secrets, can it not?
reply
upvoteby sysguest1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
well technically, yes and no

if I patent a microwave and specify exactly how it works, that part can't be trade secret

BUT if my trade secret is on using ruby diamond for deluxe premium microwave lazor THAT isn't specified on the patent, well that be a trade secret

but trade secret CAN ONLY BE PUNISHED IF someone insider leaks the info -- not much can be done if some junk collector finds out about the ruby stuff

reply
upvoteby ssl-355 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Right.

But lawyers are prone to using scary phrasing, even if that phrasing has no bite, and are free to write strongly-worded letters.

"I see that you've been publishing the privately-held, trade secret tomato processing technique I developed -- on the Internet! Now, tomato processors everywhere can see it! I'm really pissed! I demand that you stop doing this immediately! In fact, if you want a full enumeration of whar I really think about the terrible things you're doing, then I further demand that you pay me $25,000 for that effort!"

...it's got no bite, but it's a letter. It can be drafted and sent.

(It can also be ignored upon receipt.)

reply
upvoteby skygazer1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Is writting software "implementing," or is compiling it and releasing binaries (for free,) or just profiting from the release, from the perspective of patent law?
reply
upvoteby interestica1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
You can get around it by reverse engineering it as long as what's sold doesn't violate that patent. Many companies have had to reverse engineer an existing patent to figure out what they can do instead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_around

> Design-arounds are considered to be one of the benefits of patent law. By providing monopoly rights to inventors in exchange for disclosing how to make and use their inventions, others are given both the information and incentive to invent competitive alternatives that design around the original patent. In the field of vaccines, for example, design-arounds are considered fairly easy. It is often possible to use the original patent as a guide for developing an alternative that does not infringe the original patent.

reply
upvoteby arghwhat21 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
To be clear, a patent is an exclusive right to the specific functional invention, and if that invention happens to cover the one and only way to talk to the device, then it'll be hard to make a driver. In many cases you'll be able to make one for yourself due to some funny-business around patent exhaustion.

However, there is no universe where they can hold a valid patent that would encumber a driver for a regular USB display device. What they then might try to do is invoke DMCA, due to the device having DRM responsibilities (HDCP).

If they get trusted HDCP treatment from media players on some platforms, they might fight tooth and nail to not be broken open in public as that might end up with them losing trust from content providers...

Or maybe they're just assholes with no real rhyme or reason, who knows.

reply
upvoteby vlovich1231 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Umm... what? Implementing the things described in a patent is literally a patent violation regardless of how you go about it. Reverse engineering only gets a pass for trade secrets. As you said, a patent literally describes how to do the thing.
reply