News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple. Parent comment

Re:What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple by tracker1 on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @04:20PM (#14303470)
That would have definitely improved the state of things for the likes of BluRay software playback... Not to mention most electronics where software is a huge part of interaction.

I'm hoping we see some serious reduction in patents in the next few years, including compulsory licensing models for several sectors (namely medical/pharma).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple by Glyptodon on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @04:44PM (#14303647)
I'm not sure I see how it would have much to do with BluRay at all, at least for playback of encrypted content, as I think that's all about licensing non-patent IP and agreeing to non-patent-related contractual terms.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:What's Reasonable to Qualcomm Isn't to Apple by tracker1 on Tuesday May 09, 2017 @10:21PM (#14305488)
If the licensing were done at the component level, than any software could be used with a BR Drive... no patent royalties on top of the existing implementations in hardware... though, who knows.

It's the Patent IP that is the problem... you don't license non-patent IP.

[ Parent | on HN ]