Slashdot Mirror
AU Optronics Asks For US Ban On LG LCD Sales
eldavojohn writes "After a lengthy patent case, complete with countersuits, AU Optronics has asked for an injunction against all LCD products made by LG. While this may not sound serious, LG is the number one manufacturer of LCDs used in LCD TVs, laptop PCs and desktop monitors. A quarter of global LCDs shipped in March were LG brand. The bizarre part of the story is that LG Display struck first against AU Optronics way back in 2006 with a patent suit to the tune of $690 million, and in 2009, when the case finally went to court, AUO filed counter-claims of patent infringement that are now coming to fruition. So before you call AUO a patent troll, keep in mind that LGD shot first."
It seems the 'tech' companies have shifted their focus on making money by suing others rather than selling things.
And of course - when litigious bastards like Apple are hailed as Jesus Christ, you wonder if we have moved into a different era now.
Quite honestly, it is time to eliminate patents. As we've seen from countries with lax IP enforcement (AKA China), if you have a quality product, the knock-offs can't compete. The entire point of patents is to add to public knowledge, but that isn't happening. So really, we need shorter patent protection times, or just eliminate it all together.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Might make sure that people aren't drawing attention to themselves, if LG hadn't started the fight, perhaps AUoptics might not have stepped in to finish it. Perhaps this will have a bit of a chilling effect in 'throw the first punch' lawsuits where it's not entirely sure where their own patent portfolios stand.
They spend millions upon millions fighting in a broken system that for each side amounts to a crap shoot, endless appeals, and slowing down the entire production cycle with needless approvals and cross-checking to attempt to deflect or marginalize the risks, raising the cost of entry into the market, and do you know who pays for all of this?
You.
This isn't bad news for Optronics, or LG -- it's bad news for us. The consumers. Because regardless of who wins, there'll still be LCD displays being produced, and they'll be just that much more expensive now to cover the costs of the elephant mating going on between these two massive corporations. That's why the system needs reform -- not because arguments that are pro- or anti-intellectual property have any validity, but because the way it's setup now costs too damn much.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
May not look serious? What the Hell does that mean? Why would this NOT sound serious? :-)
Personally, I think sales injunctions under *most* situations are merely a "dick" move to shut down competition. What company wouldn't jump at the chance to disable any portion of sales by their competitor?
I think a more sophisticated way to deal with this is levy royalties, retroactive if need be, and enjoy your opponent's success.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
History disagrees with you. There are a large number of lawsuits brought by small companies against existing products of larger companies. I see different flaws than most. Most think getting rid of patents solves the problem but it will make it harder to develop new products and make the investment very risky. The real problems are that a large number potentially involve reinventing the wheel. Two companies come up with the same thing. Company "A" comes up with it in the 90s but doesn't produce a product. Company "B" comes up with the same thing in 2001 and sells it for 10 years then gets sued by company "A". Often times they wait until the damages are enough to make it a big payday. The flaws in the scenario are the re-invention was not done in malice and there was no stealing of ideas and company "A" never intended to develop a product so the spirit of the law was not broken. Company "A: should not be able to sue company "B". The other issue is companies waiting for the fat payday. Letting company "B" sell products for 10 years then hit them with a 100 million dollar lawsuit is unfair to company "B" who was not aware of the patent. Like other lawsuits there needs to be a window. If they miss the window they can produce their own version since they have the rights. If they already had a product and wasn't aware of the competing product possibly they could halt the sale of the item but expecting 10 years of profits makes for abuse. We need sensible laws not no law.
Every patent issued effectively blocks off a segment of a market to competitors, creating a micro-monopoly. We are rapidly approaching a time where, due to patent trading large corporations are coming close to total ownership of a particular market.
America is the major culprit in all this patent absurdity. Behind the friendly face of enterprise and free capitalism lies a very different reality. Corporations with vast resources and political lobbying power apply for patents shotgun-style to prevent any form of competition, so that they can profit by driving down production costs giving consumers overpriced, low-quality products.
From the abuse of patent law comes state-sanctioned monopolies, which is reminiscient of Soviet communist economic practice.
China, a formerly Communist nation is far more capitalist than America these days.
Posting from the UK.
Quite honestly, it is time to eliminate patents.
No problem. Just come up with a solution to the free rider problem and we won't need patents or copyright. A Nobel prize in economics awaits your brilliance.
As we've seen from countries with lax IP enforcement (AKA China), if you have a quality product, the knock-offs can't compete.
Knockoffs compete just fine. Ask any drug manufacturer if generics (a knock off even though a legal one) hurt their business.
The entire point of patents is to add to public knowledge, but that isn't happening. So really, we need shorter patent protection times, or just eliminate it all together.
Sure it is. The laws and patent system just have loop holes and faults that are creating unintended problems. The problem isn't with the idea of patents it's with the implementation.
Who cares anymore? Fix the damn system before the system permanently fixes all of us!
That's a bit disingenuous. At the time the patent system was created, there was no notion of a corporation as we know it today with most of the same rights as an individual. As far as I've been able to determine, corporations didn't typically own patents until around a century after U.S. patent law came into being, though it's hard to say that with any degree of certainty.
More to the point, when the patent system was created, we didn't have works for hire. We didn't have work contracts that require employees to assign all patents to their employer. And so on. Those assignment agreements completely change the nature of patents from benefitting the inventor to benefitting someone else in exchange for continued employment for a while. Thus, the patent system is not at all operating as originally designed, dramatically diminishing the incentive to innovate. After all, if you have a job anyway, where is the added incentive to come up with these great ideas? A chance to maybe get a raise, maybe get a bonus, maybe get squat? It's hardly a good deal for the inventor, though it's a great deal for the leechers.
The real question is whether corporate-owned patents have produced more innovation. I would contend that the reverse is true. If corporations had to go back to explicitly negotiating a license for each patent from its inventors, individuals would have greater incentive to come up with innovative ideas because they would reap the benefits directly instead of indirectly through their salaries (which rarely reflect a reasonable price for the contribution of those patents).
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.