5 ms·

Well, if it's an algorithm as the article alleges - compression is an algorithm and so are video codecs. They can be patented. Why should this be treated differ

by sqldba 10y ago

Well, if it's an algorithm as the article alleges - compression is an algorithm and so are video codecs. They can be patented. Why should this be treated differently?

galadran 10y ago
Why should video codecs be patentable? I'm well aware they are currently but it seems ludicrous that you can patent the performance of a sequence of mathematical operations.
Dylan16807 10y ago
Video codec patents are an odd example to use, as they are currently doing a great job of stifling the state of the art, rather than promoting it.
- sqldba 10y ago
  I'm not up to date on the complexities of patent vs copyright, but I'll assume you're against both? It just seems to me if you can write software you should be able to own it. If you can own it then you get to say where and how it is used and what compensation you want. Isn't an algorithm or a codec a lot like saying a program? Why shouldn't people be able to own the fruit of their labors?
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    People don't get to own the math they invent, or the mental processes they invent. I think the same should apply to algorithms in general. You don't get to control people's thoughts, and if someone is allowed to think something, they should be allowed to have a computer assist them in thinking it. Copyright is fine, if we ignore the recent length extensions. If you write software, you get to say who uses that software. But you don't get to say who uses similar software.
    - seanp2k2 10y ago
      Consider also how this applies to AI. It's very possible that in our lifetimes (I'm assuming you'll live for the next 40 years) we'll see strong AI, possibly capable of inventing novel things by itself or with human collaboration. Who owns the patents which will inevitably result from this? What if the AI has an opinion on the matter? Should the AI own the patents? Is someone allowed to own the AI?
  - phaemon 10y ago
    I don't disagree with anything you've said in that post. I just disagree that it should apply to someone else's copy.
chriswwweb 10y ago
If you want some good arguments against software patents like this one, check out these sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Why_abolish_software_patents http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Why_abolish_software_patents http://endsoftpatents.org/ http://endsoftpatents.org/

by sqldba 10y ago

Well, if it's an algorithm as the article alleges - compression is an algorithm and so are video codecs. They can be patented. Why should this be treated differently?

galadran 10y ago

Why should video codecs be patentable? I'm well aware they are currently but it seems ludicrous that you can patent the performance of a sequence of mathematical operations.

Dylan16807 10y ago

Video codec patents are an odd example to use, as they are currently doing a great job of stifling the state of the art, rather than promoting it.

sqldba 10y ago
I'm not up to date on the complexities of patent vs copyright, but I'll assume you're against both? It just seems to me if you can write software you should be able to own it. If you can own it then you get to say where and how it is used and what compensation you want. Isn't an algorithm or a codec a lot like saying a program? Why shouldn't people be able to own the fruit of their labors?
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  People don't get to own the math they invent, or the mental processes they invent. I think the same should apply to algorithms in general. You don't get to control people's thoughts, and if someone is allowed to think something, they should be allowed to have a computer assist them in thinking it. Copyright is fine, if we ignore the recent length extensions. If you write software, you get to say who uses that software. But you don't get to say who uses similar software.
  - seanp2k2 10y ago
    Consider also how this applies to AI. It's very possible that in our lifetimes (I'm assuming you'll live for the next 40 years) we'll see strong AI, possibly capable of inventing novel things by itself or with human collaboration. Who owns the patents which will inevitably result from this? What if the AI has an opinion on the matter? Should the AI own the patents? Is someone allowed to own the AI?
- phaemon 10y ago
  I don't disagree with anything you've said in that post. I just disagree that it should apply to someone else's copy.

chriswwweb 10y ago

If you want some good arguments against software patents like this one, check out these sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Why_abolish_software_patents http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Why_abolish_software_patents http://endsoftpatents.org/ http://endsoftpatents.org/