Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Popular
  • World
  • Users
  • Feed
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

NodeBB Playground

  1. Home
  2. Categories
  3. World News
  4. Chinese firm to be banned for stealing Samsung's OLED tech

Chinese firm to be banned for stealing Samsung's OLED tech

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved World News
world
6 Posts 4 Posters 0 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • microwave@lemmy.worldM This user is from outside of this forum
    microwave@lemmy.worldM This user is from outside of this forum
    microwave@lemmy.world
    wrote last edited by
    #1

    Samsung Display has scored an unprecedented victory against its rival BOE for stealing its OLED technology.

    In 2023, it filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Chinese firm BOE with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC).

    Samsung recently won that lawsuit, and the commission's ruling is expected to effectively ban BOE's products from entering the USA.

    T 1 Reply Last reply
    1
    • microwave@lemmy.worldM microwave@lemmy.world

      Samsung Display has scored an unprecedented victory against its rival BOE for stealing its OLED technology.

      In 2023, it filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Chinese firm BOE with the United States International Trade Commission (ITC).

      Samsung recently won that lawsuit, and the commission's ruling is expected to effectively ban BOE's products from entering the USA.

      T This user is from outside of this forum
      T This user is from outside of this forum
      thatcrow@ttrpg.network
      wrote last edited by
      #2

      Copyright and patent laws need to die.

      If you're cheering for this, than you're a useful idiot who now has to pay higher prices for the same product.

      3 1 Reply Last reply
      0
      • T thatcrow@ttrpg.network

        Copyright and patent laws need to die.

        If you're cheering for this, than you're a useful idiot who now has to pay higher prices for the same product.

        3 This user is from outside of this forum
        3 This user is from outside of this forum
        3abas@lemmy.world
        wrote last edited by
        #3

        The whole idea of intellectual property is bonkers. Imagine charging people for hearing your voice, that's the logical conclusion of monetizing intellectual property.

        Capitalism needs to die.

        R 1 Reply Last reply
        0
        • 3 3abas@lemmy.world

          The whole idea of intellectual property is bonkers. Imagine charging people for hearing your voice, that's the logical conclusion of monetizing intellectual property.

          Capitalism needs to die.

          R This user is from outside of this forum
          R This user is from outside of this forum
          rxbudian@lemmy.ca
          wrote last edited by
          #4

          IP is supposed to provide advantage for inventors/innovators by giving them temporary protection from copycats.
          That is to motivate people to invent/innovate.
          The problem is that the law keeps getting modified to extend the time before the protection expires and corporations abusing them in strange ways.
          The silent problem with extending the expiration is that innovators will just stop innovating and milk the IP advantage they have.

          3 1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • R rxbudian@lemmy.ca

            IP is supposed to provide advantage for inventors/innovators by giving them temporary protection from copycats.
            That is to motivate people to invent/innovate.
            The problem is that the law keeps getting modified to extend the time before the protection expires and corporations abusing them in strange ways.
            The silent problem with extending the expiration is that innovators will just stop innovating and milk the IP advantage they have.

            3 This user is from outside of this forum
            3 This user is from outside of this forum
            3abas@lemmy.world
            wrote last edited by
            #5

            The truth is innovation has always thrived most when knowledge is shared. Open scientific collaboration, communal traditions, and open-source projects show that people create because of curiosity, necessity, and the desire to contribute to something larger than themselves. Profit may push some short-term developments, but the deepest breakthroughs often come from cooperation and the joy of discovery. Human creativity has never needed private ownership to flourish; it has always been strongest when ideas circulate freely, building on each other without artificial barriers.

            We've been conditioned to believe innovators only innovate for profit. You wouldn't need protection from copycats if we didn't have capitalism.

            R 1 Reply Last reply
            0
            • 3 3abas@lemmy.world

              The truth is innovation has always thrived most when knowledge is shared. Open scientific collaboration, communal traditions, and open-source projects show that people create because of curiosity, necessity, and the desire to contribute to something larger than themselves. Profit may push some short-term developments, but the deepest breakthroughs often come from cooperation and the joy of discovery. Human creativity has never needed private ownership to flourish; it has always been strongest when ideas circulate freely, building on each other without artificial barriers.

              We've been conditioned to believe innovators only innovate for profit. You wouldn't need protection from copycats if we didn't have capitalism.

              R This user is from outside of this forum
              R This user is from outside of this forum
              rxbudian@lemmy.ca
              wrote last edited by rxbudian@lemmy.ca
              #6

              It's true that innovation thrives if shared, but it still would suck for the innovaor without temporary protection. Maybe he gets satisfaction from inventing some fancy stuff, but it doesn't pay the bills if the next day someone in china just make a cheaper copy of the invention and outsell the innovator. It would be even worse if that person in china, not only copy the invention, but made it better.
              It's fantastic for us as a consumer because it's cheaper and better of course

              1 Reply Last reply
              0
              Reply
              • Reply as topic
              Log in to reply
              • Oldest to Newest
              • Newest to Oldest
              • Most Votes


              • Login

              Powered by NodeBB Contributors
              • First post
                Last post
              0
              • Categories
              • Recent
              • Popular
              • World
              • Users
              • Feed