This is really political. No american company was banned for losing a lawsuit related to patent violations. Normally companies just have to pay money for violations
this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2025
170 points (97.8% liked)
World News
49462 readers
1586 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's not like China stealing tech wasn't their modus operandi for decades. This is just more of the same.
No, this is just a really stupid headline. The ITC is specifically a body that bars products found to be infringing from importation into the US market. It cannot allow award damages but the bar can be circumvent by a deal with the patent owner. This is literally the function of this particular body.
China's complete disregard for payments is bad...
But so is the American patent system, due to lobbyist from giant corporations like Disney essentially writing our patent laws.
The best answer is shorter term patents, it's not only a choice between the two existing systems.
Not that I don't agree with your sentiment, but patents (technical methods to build machines, do stuff, etc.) are different from copyright (stories, characters, etc.. the one Disney has exploited for decades).
Copyright and patent laws need to die.
To think otherwise is to be a useful idiot, which is the norm.
Who posts news from a corporate "news" site? Sammobile? Really? Fuck that and fuck Samsung too, with their mobster cartel practices.
Now BOE just needs to sell the technology to their completely independent wholly owned subsidiary, COE....
They’ll manufacture and relabel the products like most big corps
What’s that shell game where you guess where the ball is. Same same but with paper companies and a factory
While this is I think a win for IP law, I think the entire IP system is long overdue for an overhaul.
Get rid of the entire thing.
If you can't protect your own ideas, you shouldn't have billions of dollars of taxpayer resources to protect them for you.
All the resources wasted enforcing copyright and patent laws, which themselves exist solely to increase the price useful idiots have to pay, could be spent doing anything else that is actually beneficial for us.
Anyone who honestly believes that necessary work wouldn't get done without copyright and patent laws is a moron going to bat for people richer than him. It's unfortunately the default state for most of us at this point.
I spent 2 years perfecting this method, now I'm next to broke, how do I make use of my invention to make money if some rich mass manufacturing company can come and simply copy my design?
I spent 2 years perfecting this method
No you didn't.
how do I make use of my invention to make money if some rich mass manufacturing company can come and simply copy my design?
You mean how do you get a monopoly on an idea so you can be another piece of shit taking advantage of morons who don't know any better? I'm sure the useful idiots would be glad to give you tips on how to fuck them over so they can live vicariously through you while working service jobs. Watch.
Anyone who honestly believes that necessary work wouldn’t get done without copyright and patent laws is a moron going to bat for people richer than him. It’s unfortunately the default state for most of us at this point.
You seem to be quick to deny the amount of effort needed to invent something new that is actually useful.
What would your say should then be the main motivator for anyone to invest the (however much you think might be needed) effort needed to invent something new and useful?
if you remove money from the equation, would you do the same thing you're doing right now?
Necessity is the mother of invention. Not money. Money is just the necessity RIGHT now because the leaders you elect are only interested in themselves just like you are. If people bothered to rise up above their base desires we can do more than say "toil all your life or die".
Do you really feel like all the advancements of the past 200 or so years have made our daily lives easier?
Ah, that's what you were getting at. Yes. Of course I'm right there with you to seize the means of production.
But after that's done, I'm quitting rnd and going home to subsist on my monthly ration of 5m long baguettes and 20L jars of mustard. Someone else can work in the dangerous chem lab. If they want to.
Also, yes. In the past 200 years, inventions borne from the motivations of capitalism have brought us indoor plumbing and refrigeration. If you feel that these are meaningless, I invite you to go without it for just a day.
Actually, indoor plumbing has had a long history, so perhaps to be specific: the flushing toilet.
Also I could do with refrigeration for a day. Perhaps the microwave?
I'm not even sure why I'm debating with you - I'm against patents just as much, if not more. But short of a much better 'don't even need to think about it' alternative, the dilapidated patent system is still necessary (amongst other methods of IP protection) in this capitalism driven world.
In door plumbing has a long history, so perhaps to be specific: the flushing toilet
If the foundations for innovation were already laid for humanity.. Only thing capitalism invented was normalizing greed and preventing the majority of people from enjoying the fruits of advancement.
We never survived without cooperation. refrigeration, Microwave would never be invented in the capitalistic environment that has been festering to this point. At least you and I wouldn't be allowed to enjoy it without paying rent for it.
Shall i give you examples where capitalism perverted an idea that works by distributing benefit into one that funnels said benefit to a few people? There are so many. Infact, not funneling the benefits is the rarer occurance. Insurance is a scam. AI is just theft of our own collective knowledge held hostage.
Remember, people still invented stuff before capitalism.
I think we're digressing. I'm quite well aware of the evils of capitalism. But what is/are your suggested alternative(s) to the clearly flawed patent system?
A patent system that does not grant a patent beyond 10 years. So nobody can sit on their inventions forever and deny the public the benefits which they extract out of public money. A patent system that requires a proven product in the market place and not a concept of a product in somebody's imagination, to prevent patent trolls from stifling real innovation. A patent system that requires the patent producer to share the secrets with the public if public funding was used to develop a patent in any form.
A copyright system that actually understands product boundaries and doesn't exist as a nebuluous concept of "This name is associated with us hence it violates copyright". A copyright system that doesn't prevent fair use.
This cannot happen under capitalism as it exists. So i am not really digressing.
Your concerns and suggestions are all completely valid and I am completely in favour. That's said, I'm not sure if you've written or analysed any pareents before.
Aside from the suggestion of the reduced exploitation limit, the others are very difficult in practise to realize.
The biggest problem is that patents don't actually effectively protect anything today. The underlying causes as I see it are:
-
Technology has become far too advanced that it is extremely difficult for any review process to be sufficiently thorough in a practical time frame: A patent needs to be "new", novel. It's becoming very difficult to prove that any invention is genuinely new. An imperfect analogy is colours. How many new colours can you find up with? Is this black or that pink really new? The concept of pink or black has been around for quite a while.
-
Proven product in the marketplace: very rarely if any, does a patent translate into a product in the market. A patent is a 'method'. Not a design (which is a copyright). An example of an indirectly commercial method might be a faster or more accurate way to measure temperature in a production process that is not yet implemented (e.g next gen ASML technology). For a new technology line say, a 2nm semicon fab, the technology is broken down into its fundamental pieces and patented separately to
2a. Make it practical to review and patent specifically (a patent must be specific). Otherwise the tech for a 2nm line will simply be thousands of pages long with thousands upon thousands of individual claims. No one would ever read or assess that.
2b. Distribute (protection) risk. ASML isn't the only semicon tech company. It could be that similar technology is already existing that overlaps slightly. Instead of risking that the entire patent be denied due to a small overlap, only a few overlapping patents can be taken off and the rest protected, without needing to reinvest the very significant resources involved in rewriting the whole thing. This also illustrates why parents have to be specific. Otherwise it becomes a little subjective as to how much one patent infringes upon another.
-
Patent trolls are imho a (visible) exception to the system. They need to be sorted out post haste. But then again, the line between patent trolls and strategic holding of patents can be fuzzy: eg. ASML could be developing a roadmap for a 1.5nm process but finds this patent or two from elsewhere for another industry that is pretty key to their upcoming tech and fears it may become a weak point and they can't find a good alternative method. They may choose to buy said patent and company and close it to hold the patent (before someone else buys it and uses it to get to 1.5nm first) to ensure their 1.5nm process can be sufficiently covered. This might look like trolling behavior because ASML isn't going into whichever industry they nabbed the tech from.
-
A patent by definition requires that the secrets be shared. I have a huge problem with this as well, because the language used is very unnecessarily verbose. (Similar to T&C's). A patent requires that a person 'sufficiently skilled in the art can reproduce the outcome of the claims given the information in the patent'. It's just that most of the time, the general public (or reviewers) won't have easy access to whatever they are talking about. 'method to ensure femtosecond laser periodicity falls within target parameters with 8 sigma confidence'
-
"Nebulous concept" I like this, because this really grabs at what I also think is the problem with patents today. Patents today are treated as ammunition. Several companies can hold patents for a folding phone. Because there's more than one way to fold a phone. Now they can fight in court. But to the public, a folding phone is a folding phone. Technically. There can be any number of hinges to achieve the same function.
Even if only one hinge was possible, because of the required specificity of patent claims, another patent writer could side skirt the coverage by introducing an intermediary gear and say that it makes the opening smoother or whatever.
A patent must be:
-
a method
-
novel
-
specific
-
not be obvious to someone trained in the art (it can't be something that is intuitive to an expert)
-
some other requirements I forget, I invite you to look it up. I won't post a link as they are plentiful and I don't want to colour your source.
Edit: perhaps most importantly, a patent must solve a problem.
Because patents have become:
-
difficult to properly review (either by office or 'peers')
-
don't effectively protect an invention because it's usually possible to sideskirt them
-
become far too verbose in their language
-
technology today is too entangled to separate coverage, dependency and hierarchy (it works if everyone has only one ancestor but we have many, and share ancestry with other unrelated people) - even though there's a runout limit of 20 (or 10) years
-
complexity is exploited (key example is medicine, changing this functional group or that process to improve some miniscule performance or other to protect the entire medicine)
It's very difficult to have the current (or new, overhauled) system do what it was originally intended to do: protect a novel invention for a limited period of exclusivity: it can't be effectively protected; is rarely truly novel; limited period can be extended with loop holes.
I think the one thing to change that could go far is similar to what's been done in the material safety space for producing SDSes. Previously with EU safety requirements, the regulatory board assessed the safety of each new chemical or material. But today. Every day there are new filings. To take the load off, the assessment of safety (!) is today offloaded to the filing company and also opened to everyone in the registry (iirc free to become a member as a company) to review the safety of. After some period, the SDS is filed (with blanks where safety data is not available or relevant). This could be done with patents - just throw it out into the open for critical review by everyone in the registered industry. It would be in their interest to critically review and honestly challenge the filing or forever hold their peace. There could be problems as well with this of course, especially with regards to fair use and not using the pre-filing to hasten their internal RnD.
Copyright and patent laws need to die.
If you're cheering for this, than you're a useful idiot who now has to pay higher prices for the same product.
The whole idea of intellectual property is bonkers. Imagine charging people for hearing your voice, that's the logical conclusion of monetizing intellectual property.
Capitalism needs to die.
IP is supposed to provide advantage for inventors/innovators by giving them temporary protection from copycats.
That is to motivate people to invent/innovate.
The problem is that the law keeps getting modified to extend the time before the protection expires and corporations abusing them in strange ways.
The silent problem with extending the expiration is that innovators will just stop innovating and milk the IP advantage they have.
The truth is innovation has always thrived most when knowledge is shared. Open scientific collaboration, communal traditions, and open-source projects show that people create because of curiosity, necessity, and the desire to contribute to something larger than themselves. Profit may push some short-term developments, but the deepest breakthroughs often come from cooperation and the joy of discovery. Human creativity has never needed private ownership to flourish; it has always been strongest when ideas circulate freely, building on each other without artificial barriers.
We've been conditioned to believe innovators only innovate for profit. You wouldn't need protection from copycats if we didn't have capitalism.
It's true that innovation thrives if shared, but it still would suck for the innovaor without temporary protection. Maybe he gets satisfaction from inventing some fancy stuff, but it doesn't pay the bills if the next day someone in china just make a cheaper copy of the invention and outsell the innovator. It would be even worse if that person in china, not only copy the invention, but made it better.
It's fantastic for us as a consumer because it's cheaper and better of course
Now do Huawei.