80 ms·
Recognizing this adds legitimacy to software patents. Don't. There have been free and open source MP3 decoders for many years now.
by notaplumber 9y ago
Recognizing this adds legitimacy to software patents. Don't. There have been free and open source MP3 decoders for many years now.
- JohnJamesRambo 9y agoSo you don't believe in software patents?
- tombert 9y agoSoftware patents historically have been awarded for incredibly vague, "could-apply-to-nearly-anything" systems. As a result, there have been a lot of abuses of software patents by companies, both big and small.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- pdeuchler 9y agoAll software can be reduced to mathematical formulae, which cannot be patented, so no. There should be no such thing as a software patent.
- a3n 9y agoI'm very sympathetic to the idea of disallowing software patents; to my layman's sensibilities, so many of them are ridiculous, or after the fact grants of something that has been done in practice for years, or predatory, or all that and more. However, any physical machine or process can be reduced to the laws of physics, and you can't patent the laws of physics as far as I know. I don't think "reduced to mathematical formulae" is in itself a great argument. Should the jacquard loom have been granted a patent? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_loom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacquard_loom https://www.google.com/patents/US578068 https://www.google.com/patents/US578068
- louithethrid 9y agoNot using a patent in a product or doing further research into the area, should reduce the time of patent on a logarithmic scale.
- khedoros1 9y agoThe loom? Sure. The exact pattern on the cards themselves? Maybe not. I'd say no, but I recognize that US law currently says differently. It seems like the old pattern of "Patent a certain method of weaving brocade", then later "Patent a certain method of weaving brocade...on (mechanical) computers!"
- a3n 9y agoThe exact pattern on the cards would seem to be a copyright issue more than a patent issue. To the original objection that you can't patent math, I think some countries do disallow software patents, don't know if it's that reason or something else. But if they can disallow because math, shouldn't they disallow all patents because physics?
- dahauns 9y agoYou're on to something here - physics vs math as a demarcation line is actually a thing: German patent law for example has had the term "Technizität" as a neccessary property for a patent to be valid. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technizit%C3%A4t https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technizit%C3%A4t Money quote from the BGH (German Supreme Court): "Als patentierbar anzusehen ist eine Lehre zum planmäßigen Handeln unter Einsatz beherrschbarer Naturkräfte zur Erreichung eines kausal übersehbaren Erfolges." (GTrans:"To be considered patentable is a doctrine of planned action using controllable natural forces to achieve a causally overlookable success." :) ) i.e. You gotta use physics in your patent. I have been coming back to this time and again, and today I still see it as the least shitty definition in regard to what should be patentable and what shouldn't. Other national patent offices in Europe have used similar demarcation properties and it had served them quite well...until the degradation of patent standards started here as well around the turn of the millenium, with the first act being the EPO starting to issue software patents in rather blatant violation of its mandate.
- PhasmaFelis 9y agoI mean, I'm very much opposed to over-broad software patents, but that's a fairly silly argument. Anything a human being produces can be reduced to mathematical formulae.
- khedoros1 9y agoI think what they may've been referring to is something like the Curry-Howard correspondence, which describes the mapping between computer programs and mathematical proofs. Mathematical proofs can't be patented, and it could be taken to imply that (at least some) programs/algorithms shouldn't be eligible for patent protection.
- a3n 9y ago> Mathematical proofs can't be patented, Only because we've decided so. In the United States, for example, you can copyright the law.
- pbhjpbhj 9y agoIf there's a Theory of Everything then surely all physical existence can be expressed with mathematics. In Europe at least maths can't be patented but applications of maths often can, just like software can't be patented as such but if it has real-world technical effect it can. A new rocket launch trajectory may be "just maths" but if it reduces fuel consumption then it arguably isn't "just maths" and so will probably gain a patent. This approach seems compatible with the quid pro quo intention of patents.
- welder 9y agoSoftware patents are bullshit. A patent on an invention that many people would easily develop independently of one another should not, it is argued, be granted since this impedes development. [1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#Obviousness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#Obviousness
- mark-r 9y agoThere's nothing unique about software that makes it more likely to be developed independently by many inventors, the same happens often with hardware patents. And the same argument applies - the patent system as a whole impedes progress as much (or more?) than it advances it.
- tdb7893 9y agoI think the landscape for software patents is worse. For actual physical goods I've seen many example where the patent system does what it intends but I haven't really seen a similar benefit in software. Maybe there is one and I'm just not exposed to it, though.
- vkou 9y agoThe argument for why software patents are different is premised by why patents exist. They exist to grant someone a monopoly in exchange for them sharing their invention with the world. If I patent a dishwasher that does not clog, I will be rewarded for my invention... But once the patent expires, a skilled engineer will be able to look at my patent, and build a dishwasher that does not clog - in far less time then it took me to build mine. The overwhelming majority of the time, Software patents grant someone a monopoly, in exchange for them sharing nothing remotely useful to society. Looking at that software patent will not save another engineer any time whatsoever, in cloning my product. With that kind of patent, I am using the legal system to enrich myself, without giving anything back.
- wbl 9y agoNot true for compression patents.
- zakk 9y agoA bit like not believing in the law, something you can scream while they drag you to prison.
- magila 9y agoSoftware is already covered by copyright. Granting it parent protection as well allows software companies to double dip in a way that no other industry can.
- iplaw 9y agoThat's certainly not true. You can protect a manufacturing process via patent, and also protect a manual on the manufacturing process via copyright. Further, you can protect machinery within the manufacturing process via patent, and also protect a manual on the machinery via copyright. This parallels software coverage. You can protect the process (the executed code resulting in affirmative steps) and the manual (the source code). ================================= EDIT: I must be flagged, because I can't post anymore. SO if you make a post that people disagree with, you get your posting privileges revoked? ================================= It's close enough. The main point is, patents have been accepted as a necessary part of the investment, development, and recoupment process. A patent, directed to machinery or software, with generalized language may implicitly cover thousands of different ways to perform a given process. Look, I deal with IP day in, day out. I'm glad that it exists because I've made a career out of it. That said, I don't agree with the status quo when it comes to the patentability of computer implemented methods. Some stuff that comes across my table is clearly novel. Some stuff was issued in the late 1990s and appears to be painfully broad and woefully invalid. Software copyright infringement is a red herring, unless you are dealing with piracy, theft, etc.
- magila 9y agoYour analogy doesn't quite fit. Copyright covers both the source code, which is more analogous to the schematics than the manual, and the binaries. If a physical machine is not under patent protection you can strait up copy it and start manufacturing your own version. With software you have to go through an extra "clean room" step to get around copyright. In practice the clean room reverse engineering process is rarely utilized because it is expensive and fraught with the risk of a lawsuit from the copyright owner.
- 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- shmerl 9y agoYou should surely reject them as an acceptable practice, but it doesn't mean they can't present a legal problem. Some also say even if they reject them, they can still use them defensively.
- cookiecaper 9y agoRegardless of one's position on whether software patents should or should not be a thing, until you can convince Congress otherwise, they are a thing. Do not underestimate the importance of software patents. It is wise to build a defensive patent portfolio. I know this is no fun for people who are ideologically opposed to software patents, but as in most competitions, if the ruleset allows this advantage and you refuse to exploit it, you will lose to someone else who is less squeamish. There is absolutely a real lowest-common denominator effect that applies here. If you want your startup to be acquired, you need something that a potential acquirer can't easily circumvent; that means a brand with user loyalty or intellectual property. Anything else in the software realm, Google et al could easily replicate it within a reasonable timeframe by assigning a small team to do so. An artillery of your own ambiguous or general patents can also prevent lawsuits from others. These are the rules of the game today, and if we want to play the game, we need to use this rule to our advantage. If we hate the rule, we need to find an effective way to petition Congress to change it. This usually means demonstrating how the current law is a clear risk for the only stakeholders Congress cares about: massive companies (particularly, major employers within their constituencies). A lot of stuff that should be legally risky for big companies isn't, because the legal system is so convoluted and expensive, that they know only another well-capitalized company could successfully pursue a suit under such grounds. Since the big companies are generally advantaged by not "poking the bear" and instead accepting one another in a type of stasis, they avoid filing potential landmark cases that would dispense the legal ambiguity and strip the advantage against upstarts away from both parties. "Don't hate the player; hate the game".
- xroche 9y ago> So you don't believe in software patents ? There are two fundamental discussion schemes about software patents: (1) can we patent something that can be described as a mathematical concept and stuff. and (2) why would you want to patent software in the first place. The first discussion is tricky. Comparing algorithms to mathematics, having patents that can be expressed through mechanical OR software, etc. The second discussion is IMHO getting back to basics: Why do you want patent in the first place ? Why, in our free market universe, do you want to give to a restricted number of actors a monopoly ? Why not competition ? After all, if your neighbor decide to put a lemonade stand in front of your garden, and even if you didn't thought about this idea before, you are free to imitate/copy/replicate its business. Patents are inherently anti-free market. To answer to this, you need to get back in time, and understand the reasons that led our ancestors to create patents: some technological inventions were extremely expensive, hard to copy, and companies were spending an unreasonable amount of money in them, say, to re-invent steam engine. This led to this bizarre exception, at the very condition that it would be limited in time, and really have a positive impact on the market (ie. NOT for the companies filling patents as sole incentive) In software, there is no reason to allow patents. Don't get me wrong - a very very tiny fraction of software could be seen as needing patents (mpeg algorithms are often cited, probably engine injection algorithms too). But most of algorithms can be replicated by a bunch of engineers in an office. This is neither expensive, nor requiring specific provisions. TL;DR: Software industry does not absolutely need patents, and because patents are very strong anti-competitive provisions, it should not be allowed in this industry unless there is a clear reason.
- Nomentatus 9y agoThe big original reason patents came into existence was to reduce the number of trade secrets - an obvious block to progress; by ensuring that more inventions would enter the public domain (which was once rare and much tech was lost as a result, or very local.) See the history of forceps. Secondarily, as with copyright, you are rewarding the task of creativity. So, can you extend this first principle to software? Only if the software could operate in "a cloud" far from the user and therefore never be reverse engineered... which, oops, is exactly where we are. If there are no software patents, don't think that will mean that everyone gets to use the newest and greatest algorithms, it's more likely to mean that they will remain very private property that nobody else can build on top of. That situation could take us back centuries.
- TD-Linux 9y agoNot believing in software patents is unlikely to change a court's mind. Instead, support formats that are royalty free from the start - Vorbis, Opus, and Codec2, for example.
- throwaway91111 9y agoHow do you "support a format"? AFAIK nothing will convince Apple to release music in a better (patent-free) codec, much less convince others to dump DRM.
- 2bluesc 9y ago> How do you "support a format"? AFAIK nothing will convince Apple to release music in a better (patent-free) codec, much less convince others to dump DRM. Then you start by not giving them your money. It's a uphill battle, but someone has to fight the good fight instead of just throwing their hands-up.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago> someone has to fight the good fight That's a noble, if politically naïve, attitude. Societies, like Congress, have a limited bandwidth for problem solving. The way we prioritize what gets solved and what doesn't, as well as how to solve it, is "politics". (This is more a matter of definition than quibbling.) There are various political institutions, and individuals have varying degrees of influence over them, depending on how one's society is structured. But unvaryingly, attracting people with political capital to your cause is paramount. This is often done by showing such people an agglomeration of individuals supporting your cause, individually with less political value than them but collectively something interesting. Even the people at the bottom of the chain have limited bandwidth. This is why most systems default to delegation, particularly at scale. Single-handedly refusing to support something you think is important without patching that into a political system is fine from a personal or moral perspective, but it shouldn't be expected to actually do anything. As such, it's less a good fight than good fussing about.
- jordigh 9y agoYou can be free and open source and run afoul of software patents. You can infringe on a patent completely by accident. It's not like copyright where you have to prove an intent to copy. The worst thing about patents is that independent discovery is not a defense against infringement.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- rosstex 9y agoDecoding and encoding are separately licensed, right?
- KKKKkkkk1 9y agoBut MP3 is what made it possible to share music on the Internet and to play music off of iPod-like music players. Shouldn't the inventors benefit from their work? Don't algorithmicists deserve the same protections that say electrical engineers do?
- dingo_bat 9y agoNo, apparently all software is created in free time, for hobby purposes. That's why all software should be free, open source and patent-free. Software devs can make an easy living off supporting their software.
- huhtenberg 9y agoSarcasm doesn't do well on HN.
- Symbiote 9y agoNo. They deserve the same protection as mathematicians.
- bigbugbag 9y agoIt's not mp3 that made it possible to share music on the internet but people who did not care for the business model of the music industry. By the time ipod were out mp3 was outdated and obsolete for a while but was still the most used format for several reasons (format of choice of the pirates, cheaper to make hardware decoder, lack of success of mp3pro and other proprietary successors, reluctancy to adopt free and open format).
- amelius 9y agoWhy can my friends who studied medicine, physics, and mechanical engineering make money with their inventions, while I, software engineer, cannot?
- bogositosius 9y agoSince when is a patent required to make money off software?
- amelius 9y agoThat's not making money off software. That's making money off software AND business efforts.
- bogositosius 9y agoAnd you want to make money off software AND patent efforts. So, again, why do you think the patent is the driving factor to making money off software?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- bonzini 9y agoYour friends who studied math cannot make money with their inventions either, and your inventions are really _a lot_ like math.
- realusername 9y agoI've never seen any software worth patenting unlike with other disciplines, maybe it would help the case for software patents if they would be a need for it
- amelius 9y agoI don't see why if someone invents a clever way to perform e.g. fluid dynamics simulations in software, that can't be patented just like in other disciplines. Not all software is just shopping baskets, and website glue logic.