|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, July 04 2013 @ 03:20 PM EDT |
>the first real functional LED was Russian 1927
You obviously don't understand -
this is an "improved" "method".
For every bite, the cherry turns to expose a new lawsuit.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Thursday, July 04 2013 @ 04:45 PM EDT |
I really don't understand why every time the subject is some patent litigation
somebody always comes up with a comment like "But LEDs were discovered in
1927 and the first visible light LED built in 1962!"
The article about this that is now in News Picks has a link to the actual
patent. Even just reading the abstract makes it clear that this is about just
one set of techniques for manufacturing one type of LED. I don't have the
expertise to be able to say what about it if anything might be novel over the
earlier methods of using molecular epitaxy to manufacture LEDs, or if Samsung is
currently using those particular novel techniques to make their LEDs, but this
is not some vague software patent being trolled. If the techniques are novel for
the time the patent was filed and are still being used by Samsung, then BU has a
case and they are going after Samsung's downstream customers as a way of
fighting against a huge corporation that has the financial resources to
stonewall BU's attempt to get Samsung to license the patent.
BU's methods may be reminiscent of patent trolls going after end users, but are
not necessarily based on the same motivations. I do think that what they are
doing is unfair to end users who end up as collateral damage in a war between BU
and Samsung.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|