News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Patent troll claims to own Bluetooth, scores $15.7M verdict against Samsung. Parent comment

Re:Patent troll claims to own Bluetooth, scores $15.7M verdi... by aceperry on Wednesday February 18, 2015 @02:22PM (#9070419)
"the patents concern a specific feature of Bluetooth 2.0"

That's not a "feature" of Bluetooth 2.0+, it's a fundamental part of the Bluetooth spec. Without it you couldn't have Bluetooth. So the headline is correct.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Patent troll claims to own Bluetooth, scores $15.7M verdi... by throwawaykf05 on Thursday February 19, 2015 @12:01AM (#9072473)
> ... it's a fundamental part of the Bluetooth spec...

The key word being "part", so the headline is incorrect.

> Without it you couldn't have Bluetooth.

While it was the main innovation in 2.0, EDR was optional in the spec.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Patent troll claims to own Bluetooth, scores $15.7M verdi... by aceperry on Thursday February 19, 2015 @01:13AM (#9072699)
'The key word being "part", so the headline is incorrect.'

That's a ridiculous argument. Parsing the spec like that is meaningless.

"While it was the main innovation in 2.0, EDR was optional in the spec."

Can't argue with non-reasoning like that.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Patent troll claims to own Bluetooth, scores $15.7M verdi... by throwawaykf05 on Saturday February 21, 2015 @08:59AM (#9085517)
You can implement Bluetooth 2.0 without EDR, so how is it meaningless? If you explain, maybe we'll see if indeed pointing out "optional" is the opposite of "fundamental" is indeed "non-reasoning".
[ Parent | on HN ]