News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury ... by freejazz on Thursday April 11, 2024 @02:17PM (#40005137)
>Of course, if indeed AWS came to a very similar implementation themselves, as the jury found, then that further suggests that the idea is not that novel.

That wouldn't matter if AWS came to the very similar implementation on their own, after the Plaintiff's patent was issued (and became public information). Patent, unlike copyright, does not allow for independent invention/creation. If you come to, on your own, something already covered in a patent during its term, then you infringe.

Re:Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury ... by tsimionescu on Friday April 12, 2024 @01:00PM (#40015118)
Yes, it doesn't matter for determining if you are infringing on the patent. But it does matter for (a) the kinds of damages that you can be liable for, and (b) it can matter if you try to attack the patent itself to try to get it invalidated. Patents are only supposed to be granted for non-obvious ideas, so one way of attacking a patent is to show that many people came up with that idea independently, which is a strong argument that the idea doesn't pass the non-obviousness test and can get the patent invalidated.
Re:Amazon owes $525M in cloud-storage patent fight, US jury ... by freejazz on Friday April 12, 2024 @10:52PM (#40020072)
Yes, they can be evidence that invalidates a patent if they qualify as prior art.