5 ms·

Strange that Apple didn't publish it on https://github.com/apple https://github.com/apple (which holds all of their open Swift repos). Also, to clarify, ANS is

by mayoff 10y ago

Strange that Apple didn't publish it on https://github.com/apple https://github.com/apple (which holds all of their open Swift repos). Also, to clarify, ANS is relatively new (2009) but arithmetic coding has been around for a long time. Historically it was avoided because of patents, many (all?) of which have now expired. Apparently ANS isn't going to be patented.

bch 10y ago
Question not about ANS, but patenting: Wouldn't it make more sense for Apple (or anybody) to actually patent it, and keep those patents, but make it open via licensing ? If there's patentable material and $developer passes on filing for it, doesn't that leave it open for poaching by $third_party ?
- riffraff 10y ago
  The patent is invalid if prior art exists,so publishing it is enough to avoid it being poached by others
  - derekp7 10y ago
    But doesn't the patent office only look at previous patents when searching for prior art? Of course, other sources of prior art can be brought in as a defense, but it still may not stop someone from getting a patent initially and using it to harass financially weak opponents.
    - thwarted 10y ago
      Lack of patent examiner familiarity with the industry, history, and the state of the art is traditionally considered a weak point in the system as a whole. Supposedly when writing the patent claims you're supposed to do a search to make sure you're not conflicting with other patents and that there is no prior art, but this is often used to word the patent in such a way to avoid the prior art from invalidating the patent, or use differences with the prior art as support for the uniqueness of the patent being applied for. Unfortunately, patent examiners are traditionally illequipped to accurately make an assessment, and the patent applicant is allowed to make adjustments to address the issues the patent examiner found. I remember there was work on getting patent examiners to be more familiar with the areas the patents they are examining/approving are for (technology, software, or business, for example), but I don't know where that stands today. However, IANAPL and IANAPE.
      - leeoniya 10y ago
        http://patents.stackexchange.com/ http://patents.stackexchange.com/ helps with this
- andrepd 10y ago
  Offtopic, but I wonder what do you intend to gain by writing "$word" instead of "a word".
  - bch 10y ago
    As it ended up being posted, it really could have been "a <word>". During the course of producing it, it seemed like the entities involved might be confusing, and my first approach was to treat everything like a unique variable. TLDR, made sense during composition, not w/ final product.
eln1 10y ago
There is an attempt to patent something ANS-related: http://cbloomrants.blogspot.com/2015/05/05-21-15-software-patents-are-fucking.html http://cbloomrants.blogspot.com/2015/05/05-21-15-software-pa...

by mayoff 10y ago

bch 10y ago

Question not about ANS, but patenting: Wouldn't it make more sense for Apple (or anybody) to actually patent it, and keep those patents, but make it open via licensing ? If there's patentable material and $developer passes on filing for it, doesn't that leave it open for poaching by $third_party ?

riffraff 10y ago
The patent is invalid if prior art exists,so publishing it is enough to avoid it being poached by others
- derekp7 10y ago
  But doesn't the patent office only look at previous patents when searching for prior art? Of course, other sources of prior art can be brought in as a defense, but it still may not stop someone from getting a patent initially and using it to harass financially weak opponents.
  - thwarted 10y ago
    Lack of patent examiner familiarity with the industry, history, and the state of the art is traditionally considered a weak point in the system as a whole. Supposedly when writing the patent claims you're supposed to do a search to make sure you're not conflicting with other patents and that there is no prior art, but this is often used to word the patent in such a way to avoid the prior art from invalidating the patent, or use differences with the prior art as support for the uniqueness of the patent being applied for. Unfortunately, patent examiners are traditionally illequipped to accurately make an assessment, and the patent applicant is allowed to make adjustments to address the issues the patent examiner found. I remember there was work on getting patent examiners to be more familiar with the areas the patents they are examining/approving are for (technology, software, or business, for example), but I don't know where that stands today. However, IANAPL and IANAPE.
    - leeoniya 10y ago
      http://patents.stackexchange.com/ http://patents.stackexchange.com/ helps with this
andrepd 10y ago
Offtopic, but I wonder what do you intend to gain by writing "$word" instead of "a word".
- bch 10y ago
  As it ended up being posted, it really could have been "a <word>". During the course of producing it, it seemed like the entities involved might be confusing, and my first approach was to treat everything like a unique variable. TLDR, made sense during composition, not w/ final product.

eln1 10y ago

There is an attempt to patent something ANS-related: http://cbloomrants.blogspot.com/2015/05/05-21-15-software-patents-are-fucking.html http://cbloomrants.blogspot.com/2015/05/05-21-15-software-pa...