3 ms·

The "crummy patents" and "having patents at all" are very much intertwined. The problem is the bit about obviousness to someone skilled in the art. Even thoug

The "crummy patents" and "having patents at all" are very much intertwined. The problem is the bit about obviousness to someone skilled in the art. Even though I am a programmer, I know nothing at all about video codecs, so nothing seems obvious at all. But to someone skilled at making codecs, it's a different matter. I remember very clearly when Ogg Theora was being developed the difficulty they had in choosing a technique that would work and was not already patented. It's not like they were looking up algorithms in a big book and saying "I wonder if that one is patented". They were coming up with techniques independently and then having to search to see if it was patented. At what point is something obvious to a person skilled in the art? What should be patentable? Should you be able to get a patent across a whole field of techniques because you managed to implement one example of that technique? The overall approach might be obvious to someone skilled in the art, but the devil is in the details. If someone can patent the overall approach because they have implemented an example of that approach, then it shuts down everybody else. If you have a company that goes around buying up (or making strategic partnerships with companies that own) patents that cover all conceivable approaches, then they can completely lock down any new developments for a couple of decades. This is the reality of codec development right now. Is this what we want? Is it good for the industry and society in general? Imagine as a programmer being told, "No matter what idea you have, it is already patented. You are not allowed to program without paying someone a fee. If they decide not to sell to you, then you can't program at all". That's the world of a codec developer. It's something that I personally do not want.

TheCondor 11y ago
You can program it, you can use it. You might have trouble distributing it or selling it. Is it better to patent something and tell the whole world how to do it? Or is it better to just keep it secret? It seems like some refinements to when you can sue might be in order, specifically, I might outlaw suing if you don't market an implementation of your own; that radically changes the value of a lot of property though.
- mikekchar 11y ago
  Actually, the crazy things about patents is the you can't legally program it, even for your own use. As a programmer, I am firmly against software patents. They are a burden only. How many programmers troll patents thinking, "I'll look for useful techniques so that I can license them in my program"? Even if you wanted to, you couldn't because there are millions of them. And if you start looking, you may get sued for wilful infringement if you forget about something you saw and start using it. That aside from any arguments about the patentability of ideas rather than inventions. I would be 100% in favour of software patents if the implementation was covered (i.e. the source code). If I used a different implementation for the same idea, then the patent wouldn't hold. Of course such a patent would be useless in a world where software is covered by copyright.
  - TheCondor 11y ago
    You absolutely can implement it for your own use, research, etc. distribution and sale of code implementing patents is potentially problematic.
- shadowmint 11y ago
  > Is it better to patent something and tell the whole world how to do it? Or is it better to just keep it secret? Where did this 'patents are good because they make inventions public' idea suddenly come from? I've seen it bandied around a lot lately from people who are uncomfortable with directly supporting patents. No. It's not better. Don't be ridiculous. > Or is it better to just keep it secret? How do you imagine anyone will do that? Imagine I come up with a new compression algorithm that achieves 1:4 compression on 80% of compressed files and normal 1:2 on the rest. In a patent system I can: 1) Use it privately and not tell anyone. Keeping it secret. 2) Patent it and license it to other people. I risk being sued out of existence by existing patent holders and trolls. In a non-patent system I can: 1) Use it privately and not tell anyone. Keeping it secret. 2) Share and sell it as a black box implementation. People will immediately reverse engineer the compression method. ??? How is privacy and secrets an issue here? In both cases (1) is the best choice if you don't want your competitors to get access to your algorithm. In the patent case its easier for 3rd parties to find the implementation details by doing no work themselves. It's also significantly more risky. In the non-patent case, people have to actually work to reverse engineer the implementation, sure, but then they're free to use it. There's also no risk in selling and distributing the product. So, lets see here, things which are better, since both paths lead to the algorithm being made freely available in the end: 1 - Do research, at risk that you'll get sued into oblivion the moment you publish & sell. Even if you don't immediately get sued, you have zero temporary competitive advantage because you just told every competitor what you're doing. 2 - Do research and have temporary competitive advantage once you release it? The only people who win in the patent way is lawyers. The 'secrets are bad' argument is a straw man; first you setup the straw man (but then we would never get to know the secret details!!?!!), then you punch it a few times (but sharing knowledge is good! How will the global body of knowledge grow if everything is just secrets??). It's just daft. So yes, "It seems like some refinements to when you can sue might be in order"; indeed; ie. never.

TheCondor 11y ago

You can program it, you can use it. You might have trouble distributing it or selling it. Is it better to patent something and tell the whole world how to do it? Or is it better to just keep it secret? It seems like some refinements to when you can sue might be in order, specifically, I might outlaw suing if you don't market an implementation of your own; that radically changes the value of a lot of property though.

mikekchar 11y ago
Actually, the crazy things about patents is the you can't legally program it, even for your own use. As a programmer, I am firmly against software patents. They are a burden only. How many programmers troll patents thinking, "I'll look for useful techniques so that I can license them in my program"? Even if you wanted to, you couldn't because there are millions of them. And if you start looking, you may get sued for wilful infringement if you forget about something you saw and start using it. That aside from any arguments about the patentability of ideas rather than inventions. I would be 100% in favour of software patents if the implementation was covered (i.e. the source code). If I used a different implementation for the same idea, then the patent wouldn't hold. Of course such a patent would be useless in a world where software is covered by copyright.
- TheCondor 11y ago
  You absolutely can implement it for your own use, research, etc. distribution and sale of code implementing patents is potentially problematic.
shadowmint 11y ago
> Is it better to patent something and tell the whole world how to do it? Or is it better to just keep it secret? Where did this 'patents are good because they make inventions public' idea suddenly come from? I've seen it bandied around a lot lately from people who are uncomfortable with directly supporting patents. No. It's not better. Don't be ridiculous. > Or is it better to just keep it secret? How do you imagine anyone will do that? Imagine I come up with a new compression algorithm that achieves 1:4 compression on 80% of compressed files and normal 1:2 on the rest. In a patent system I can: 1) Use it privately and not tell anyone. Keeping it secret. 2) Patent it and license it to other people. I risk being sued out of existence by existing patent holders and trolls. In a non-patent system I can: 1) Use it privately and not tell anyone. Keeping it secret. 2) Share and sell it as a black box implementation. People will immediately reverse engineer the compression method. ??? How is privacy and secrets an issue here? In both cases (1) is the best choice if you don't want your competitors to get access to your algorithm. In the patent case its easier for 3rd parties to find the implementation details by doing no work themselves. It's also significantly more risky. In the non-patent case, people have to actually work to reverse engineer the implementation, sure, but then they're free to use it. There's also no risk in selling and distributing the product. So, lets see here, things which are better, since both paths lead to the algorithm being made freely available in the end: 1 - Do research, at risk that you'll get sued into oblivion the moment you publish & sell. Even if you don't immediately get sued, you have zero temporary competitive advantage because you just told every competitor what you're doing. 2 - Do research and have temporary competitive advantage once you release it? The only people who win in the patent way is lawyers. The 'secrets are bad' argument is a straw man; first you setup the straw man (but then we would never get to know the secret details!!?!!), then you punch it a few times (but sharing knowledge is good! How will the global body of knowledge grow if everything is just secrets??). It's just daft. So yes, "It seems like some refinements to when you can sue might be in order"; indeed; ie. never.