Tootfinder

A UK court orders Samsung to pay ZTE $392M for patents needed to enable phone network access; Samsung faces similar suits from ZTE in China, Germany, and Brazil (Sam Tobin/Reuters)
https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/u

I have an idea to solve patents. Maybe not a good one.
Any patent holder cannot use the technology, they can only license it.
Ah nevermind, patent holding companies are already a thing.

Our patent system, like our copyright system, has become a monster in which the "monopoly" period granted to patent (and cop;yright) holders far, far exceeds what is granted by our US Constitution.
The Constitution requires that patents and copyrights (but not trademarks) be for "limited times". That is not defined, but it must be interpreted in the context of the Contitution's goal to "promote scientific and artistic progress".
The following ra…

Firm quietly boosts H.264 streaming license fees from $100,000 up to staggering $4.5 million — backbone codec of the internet gets meteoric increase, AVC hikes follow disastrous H.265 licensing increases
Existing licensees are grandfathered.

How Merck uses patents to help maintain Keytruda's exorbitant price - ICIJ
https://www.icij.org/investigations/cancer-calculus/keytruda-evergreening-patents-merck/

Are governments properly supporting the digital commons? Many adopt open source software but don't fund the upstream projects that maintain it. This amplifies a "tragedy of the commons" rather than being part of the solution. Governments have historically invented ways to shape the playing field - patents, public universities, copyright, taxes ... They can do it again!

Governments need to adopt Matrix responsibly | Anais Concepcion
Are governments abdicating their duty to the digital commons? And no, this isn't another "pay up" post. The solution is bigger than money. Element astutely highlights a troubling pattern: A government adopts open source software, deploys it, and pays nothing to the editors maintaining the upstream project. Upstream editors, receiving no revenue from their largest users, face a rational but painful choice: build proprietary features that force payment, or shut down. I think it's worse than th…

stupid question:
What is the actual obstacle to being able to run Linux on a cellphone (i.e., and be able to use it as a cellphone)?
Is there some crucial interop spec that's being kept proprietary/secret?
Or is it there some particular software component that's encumbered by patents and so there can't be a free version of it?
Some weird licensing structure that the operating companies have been able to enforce (and the EU hasn't gotten around to say…