
Broadcom Sues Netflix - karavelov
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/03/17/broadcom_sues_netflix/
======
karavelov
Broadcom sues Netflix for its success: You’re stopping us making a fortune
from set-top boxes, moans chip designer

------
rolph
when broadcom is finished playing with stone knives and bear skins, then they
can assume a modern distribution model

and for what its worth i cut my cable a long time ago due to poor channel
selection and content as well as all the graffitti that is plastered all over
something that is supposed to be entertaining but becomes annoying like a
child standing infront of the screen on purpose.

if broadcom can address those issues im sure they can do well.

------
gentleman11
This article is terrible. Somewhere in the middle they claim the actual claim
is about patent infringement, not loss of income due to changing consumer
preferences.

(Yes, Patent trolling needs to be stopped)

~~~
saxonww
Crying over revenue is what this lawsuit is really about, though, even if
patent infringement is the cudgel.

I don't really understand how Broadcom believes they can get anything out of
this. Look at the cited patents: several of these were filed and/or granted
before Netflix ever streamed a byte, and one of them expired last year. I'm
not a patent lawyer, but I thought you had to defend your patents quickly and
vigorously. Won't Broadcom have to explain why they sat on this for roughly a
decade while Netflix evidently destroyed their market?

~~~
throw_away
Also not a lawyer, but I think that's trademark which must be vigorously
defended. I believe patents have a six-year limit from infringement:
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/286](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/286)

~~~
siegel
There is a six-year statute of limitations on patent infringement claims. But
there is a separate doctrine called "laches" that says that, notwithstanding
any statute of limitations, if a plaintiff sits around on their rights, their
lawsuit can be barred.

But the Supreme Court recently held that laches was not a defense in statute
of limitations cases. So, that wouldn't be an issue here.

