4 ms·

I'm curious about what advantages and benefits, if any, the patents brought to Fraunhofer. Other than making mp3 slightly more difficult to work with especially

I'm curious about what advantages and benefits, if any, the patents brought to Fraunhofer. Other than making mp3 slightly more difficult to work with especially on Linux, did it benefit them in any way? Did them benefit society? Coming at this from an "this is a real-life example of software patents being {good|bad}".

TD-Linux 10y ago
It made them a lot of money.
- Gaelan 10y ago
  Were they involved in the creation of MP3?
  - kowdermeister 10y ago
    Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_Society#Notable_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_Society#Notable_pro...
  - davidgerard 10y ago
    Karlheinz Brandenburg at Fraunhofer invented MP3. (And AAC.) (edit: not Stockhausen, thank you!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlheinz_Brandenburg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlheinz_Brandenburg
    - kken 10y ago
      Karlheinz Brandenburg... Stockhausen was a composer.
  - kken 10y ago
    They developed MP3.
Tomte 10y ago
Money, of course. All kind of companies (including megacorps) paid for it. Even some private individuals like me (I think the company was called Fluendo?)
poizan42 10y ago
The licensing money have probably helped the Fraunhofer Society do more research. Now whether that is the way you think research should be founded, and whether the net cost to society has been larger than the gain is another question.
- detaro 10y ago
  For context, Fraunhofer Society is a massive public-benefit organisation aimed at applied research: while it gets some public funding, that public funding is given according to how much they make in industry contracts, which are the primary source of income. The idea behind this model is that they have room to do work that's not immediately profitable, but on the other hand have to keep applications in mind and work effectively to still get industry work.
quadrangle 10y ago
There's no real-life example of software patents being good.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  I'm down on software patents too, but I'm not sure that's supportable without at least some sort of argument.
  - quadrangle 10y ago
    Given that the fundamental concept of software patents is bad, not only in principle but in practice, there's burden on anyone suggesting the good/bad question to validate that it's even a legitimate question. It's like the creationism/evolution "debate". I can simply say that there's no validity at all to the creationism arguments without providing any argument at all. Similar to the idea that I don't need to provide an argument to reject any other sort of baseless idea of false equivalence or unwarranted appeal to agnosticism.
    - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
      If your premise is that "patents are not good" then why even ask the question about software patents? It's rather disingenuous, the assumption with the structure of your question is "within the framework of 'patents can be good'".
      - quadrangle 10y ago
        Well, I indeed do not believe that patents are actually good, but there's far more merit to the unconvincing arguments that patents can be good than to any arguments that software patents can be good. There are good reasons that many people (particularly among those who understand software) fundamentally oppose the entire concept of software patents without opposing all patents.
    - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
      "I'm obviously right, so there" is not an argument. If you want to convince a poor foolish Philistine like myself, you need to actually discuss your evidence and conclusions.
mljoe 10y ago
Fraunhofer got paid lots of money from big companies buying patent licenses. Since they are a non-profit institution dedicated to scientific research, almost everything they make finds its way back into funding scientific research. That said, we shouldn't generalize Fraunhofer's economics to the rest of the software industry. If it was just this kind of thing I would have zero problems with it. But we should be suspicious of software patents because the patent system implicitly rewards ideas that are broad (more things a patent touches, more $$$) and non-inventive (less work to come up with a patent, more $$$). Patents can be dangerous to human progress, and the patent system encourages patents that are. A broad patent could hold a whole industry hostage for 20 years, which is an eternity in technology. I sympathize more with folks who want to get rid of the whole thing for this reason.

TD-Linux 10y ago

It made them a lot of money.

Gaelan 10y ago
Were they involved in the creation of MP3?
- kowdermeister 10y ago
  Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_Society#Notable_projects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_Society#Notable_pro...
- davidgerard 10y ago
  Karlheinz Brandenburg at Fraunhofer invented MP3. (And AAC.) (edit: not Stockhausen, thank you!) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlheinz_Brandenburg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlheinz_Brandenburg
  - kken 10y ago
    Karlheinz Brandenburg... Stockhausen was a composer.
- kken 10y ago
  They developed MP3.

Tomte 10y ago

Money, of course. All kind of companies (including megacorps) paid for it. Even some private individuals like me (I think the company was called Fluendo?)

poizan42 10y ago

The licensing money have probably helped the Fraunhofer Society do more research. Now whether that is the way you think research should be founded, and whether the net cost to society has been larger than the gain is another question.

detaro 10y ago
For context, Fraunhofer Society is a massive public-benefit organisation aimed at applied research: while it gets some public funding, that public funding is given according to how much they make in industry contracts, which are the primary source of income. The idea behind this model is that they have room to do work that's not immediately profitable, but on the other hand have to keep applications in mind and work effectively to still get industry work.

quadrangle 10y ago

There's no real-life example of software patents being good.

PhasmaFelis 10y ago
I'm down on software patents too, but I'm not sure that's supportable without at least some sort of argument.
- quadrangle 10y ago
  Given that the fundamental concept of software patents is bad, not only in principle but in practice, there's burden on anyone suggesting the good/bad question to validate that it's even a legitimate question. It's like the creationism/evolution "debate". I can simply say that there's no validity at all to the creationism arguments without providing any argument at all. Similar to the idea that I don't need to provide an argument to reject any other sort of baseless idea of false equivalence or unwarranted appeal to agnosticism.
  - pbhjpbhj 10y ago
    If your premise is that "patents are not good" then why even ask the question about software patents? It's rather disingenuous, the assumption with the structure of your question is "within the framework of 'patents can be good'".
    - quadrangle 10y ago
      Well, I indeed do not believe that patents are actually good, but there's far more merit to the unconvincing arguments that patents can be good than to any arguments that software patents can be good. There are good reasons that many people (particularly among those who understand software) fundamentally oppose the entire concept of software patents without opposing all patents.
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    "I'm obviously right, so there" is not an argument. If you want to convince a poor foolish Philistine like myself, you need to actually discuss your evidence and conclusions.

mljoe 10y ago

Fraunhofer got paid lots of money from big companies buying patent licenses. Since they are a non-profit institution dedicated to scientific research, almost everything they make finds its way back into funding scientific research. That said, we shouldn't generalize Fraunhofer's economics to the rest of the software industry. If it was just this kind of thing I would have zero problems with it. But we should be suspicious of software patents because the patent system implicitly rewards ideas that are broad (more things a patent touches, more $$$) and non-inventive (less work to come up with a patent, more $$$). Patents can be dangerous to human progress, and the patent system encourages patents that are. A broad patent could hold a whole industry hostage for 20 years, which is an eternity in technology. I sympathize more with folks who want to get rid of the whole thing for this reason.