I agree that the patent law is bogus in its current form. But, that's what we have now and we have to figure out how to use this bogus principle and make an even playing field for the entire community while lining the pockets of the lawyers and judges.
ST is utilizing their financial strength to slow down their competitor with the help of the bogus law. This is a smart thing to do. Business 101 my friend. Welcome to the wonderful world of patent law!
Law is the only field where people practicing in its field gets to judge other profession's values. A judge who usually is non-scientific gets to hear from expert witnesses from both sides and renders a "judgement" without having any clue on the underlying evolution. I feel sorry for Invensense, now they have to spend their money raised in IPO paying off the lawyers instead of using that money for innovative products that a startup typically brings out. Patent law in its current form is bogus. The lawyers are stealing the capital from Invensense legally!!!
Shame on ST that they have to resort to court battles instead of fighting in the market.
Is this a surpise for MEMS world? Any working MEMS hard to find alternatives, like
TI dominates DLP, HP dominates inkjet head....
I won't be surpised to hear that 95% of Invensense is its own invention, all it takes 5% using others' patents, they need to pay the price.
The problem is Invensene' structure is so unique that STM might not use them anyway, so you can not counter-sue them.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.