6 ms·

The title sounds like Google is doing everyone a favor. From reading the thread on encode.ru it appears to me that Google is patenting it so that they have the

by redm 9y ago

The title sounds like Google is doing everyone a favor. From reading the thread on encode.ru it appears to me that Google is patenting it so that they have the patent, not for purely altruistic reasons. If it was for the public good, the patent would be filed via a non-profit that Google can't control.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
Or at least, that Google would pledge all of their patents if their patents had altruistic goals. There is a tiny number of patents they've pledged not to sue offensively for: https://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/patents/ https://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/patents/ The fact that they have not pledged most of the rest indicates that someone there is maintaining their ability to offensively sue in the future.
- ehsankia 9y ago
  Have they ever used their parents offensively ever? The only case I know of is the Waymo one, but that was a special case where they had proof of their data being stolen. The other case would be against Microsoft but IIRC Microsoft was the one who started that case so it was technically "defensive" use.
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    Companies change. You can't assume that a company not offensively using patents today will not offensively use them tomorrow. If based on some misguided belief of corporate altruism (something that very simply does not exist), you grant a company unwarranted rights, they will come back to abuse them later. Even if you have unwavering trust in Larry Page and Sergey Brin's unquestionable morals (I couldn't say this with a straight face, but anyways), the reality is, they will not run the company forever. If you've noticed something about most patent trolls, they're has-beens. When you can't compete, you sue on patents. Right now, as one of the most valuable companies on the planet with multiple products that are monopolies, obviously that does not describe Google today. But it does describe Google at some date in the future. And when Google's profits are crashing, and they're trying to figure out how to stay in business, some business exec is going to realize that treasure trove of patents can solve all their problems...
    - ehsankia 9y ago
      But we don't live in a perfect world. Someone has to hold this patent. If it isn't Google, it'll be someone else. If you can give me any other company which you think is better situated to hold this copyright, go for it. The system is broken, and this is the best we can do right now.
amelius 9y ago
> If it was for the public good, the patent would be filed via a non-profit that Google can't control. Couldn't they just publish the techniques by some other means? E.g. some scientific journal. I mean, a publication is strong evidence of prior art.
- josaka 9y ago
  In theory yes, but it's less effective than filing a patent app, letting it publish, and then abandoning. Patent examiners tend to spend more time searching patent prior art because the prior art disclosures tend to be kitchen-sink exercises that make it easier to hit all elements of a claim relative to more targeted technical publications.
- epmaybe 9y ago
  I've been wondering this, and I'm not a lawyer so I have no experience in this regard. But! If you patent something, and don't have a licensing fee or anything like that, I would imagine that it would deter some patent trolls from getting a false patent and suing people using that technique. Fighting in court costs a lot of money for people like me (and probably you) so anything that keeps me out of court is a good thing.
  - amelius 9y ago
    Hmm, so actually we need a different construct. Perhaps USPTO could add a checkbox to the patent form, saying that the patent will not be used aggressively in a court of law. Still not ideal, since I suppose the patent application procedure will cost the same.
    - simias 9y ago
      That would mean that the USPTO tacitly admits the fact that the patent system is broken and they need hacks to work around it. I think that would be strange coming from them. If the patent system was working correctly there would be no need such a thing, either something is patented or it isn't. If it isn't it shouldn't be possible for a third party to patent it post-facto since there's already prior art. At least, that's the spirit of it as far as I'm aware.
zitterbewegung 9y ago
Why not just not patent it if you want it available for everyone? The current version of Google would not enforce the patent. In the future if Google's leadership, organization or position in the market changes someone would be able to obtain the patent and then no one would have the favor.
- dnautics 9y ago
  Because someone else less scrupulous might. At our current juncture it's impossible to trust that the patent review system will effectively capture prior art events.
  - rhino369 9y ago
    Capturing prior art products is hard. But Google could just publish articles describing the technology in a journal. That is solid, easily obtainable prior art.
    - puzzle 9y ago
      You can have all the prior art you want and still end up in court, having to make your case, because you're not the one who got the patent. For what it's worth, and slightly related, there are design mocks on the chromium site that didn't get implemented and always looked like deliberate prior art to me, so I suspect the idea is not new to the lawyers in Mountain View. We don't know what's the rationale here. For all we know, Google might even be OK if the patent is not granted to them, as long as it isn't to anyone else, either. The radio silence is to be expected when lawyercats are involved, unfortunately. [Ex-Google employee, not a lawyer, etc.]
      - rhino369 9y ago
        Getting a patent doesn't mean the patent office doesn't give someone else a patent that more or less covers the same thing.
        9y ago
espadrine 9y ago
I don't think the title is positive. I assumed it to mean that Jarek Duda had joined Google, but it is Jarek speaking in the thread. I follow the data compression sphere a bit. It really seems like Google is making a mistake here. From a patent perspective, since ANS is already "prior art", it seems like it doesn't deserve a patent. Presumably Google wants to avoid receiving a misinformed lawsuit about ANS that they would then have to fight to prove that an ANS patent shouldn't be valid. Still, not putting Jarek in the loop (and like he mentions, not engaging with his university more) is wrong. The best takeaway: if anybody is also afraid of Google having a very general patent for using ANS (both tANS and rANS) in image and video compression and can explain why the above claims are just a natural mix of known methods: go to: https://efs.uspto.gov/efile/portal/efs-unregistered https://efs.uspto.gov/efile/portal/efs-unregistered select "Existing application/patent" and then "Third-Party Preissuance Submission under 37 CFR 1.290" as "Application number" enter: 15/370840 "Confirmation number": 5111
- redm 9y ago
  "I don't think the title is positive." The title of the post was changed. It used to read that they were patenting for the public good.
DannyBee 9y ago
"it appears to me that Google is patenting it so that they have the patent, not for purely altruistic reasons" This is not correct. In fact, as far as i know, the code was already open sourced, and the patent would end up released as part of AV1/etc anyway. "If it was for the public good, the patent would be filed via a non-profit that Google can't control." It'll be released that way, so who cares who files and pays the fees? You really don't want non-profits filing patents. Really. This is pretty much the most horrible thing i can think of. It's infinitely easier to keep them from going bad (Example: MPEG-LA) if you can make their corporate bylaws, etc, prevent them from filing patents.
- xiphmont 9y ago
  >You really don't want non-profits filing patents. Really. >This is pretty much the most horrible thing i can think of. >It's infinitely easier to keep them from going bad (Example: >MPEG-LA) if you can make their corporate bylaws, etc, >prevent them from filing patents. ? Non-profits are corporations. They have by-laws. They also have several advantages over for-profits in the case of dissolution; eg, you can set up a non-profit so that the IP they hold is not simply sold to the highest bidder. FTR, Xiph.Org is a registered 501(c)3 non-profit, and we hold patents.
  - DannyBee 9y ago
    Holding is different than filing. As I said, i'm fine with holding, just not filing. For precisely the reason you say. Non-profits can in fact, "go bad" the same as any other corporation. If they can only hold patents, and not file them, you at least cut off a source of that happening. Is it possible to work around? So is anything in the legal world. But it makes for a nice barrier.
maxxxxx 9y ago
Just wondering: Can a patent holder give up his rights and invalidate the patent? Or can a copyright holder put his work into the public domain?
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  > Can a patent holder give up his rights What do you mean by "give up his rights"? Whether he can allow other people to use the patented idea? > and invalidate the patent? What do you mean by "invalidate"? Whether they can show the patent office prior art to their own patent and ask them to for that reason invalidate the patent? > Or can a copyright holder put his work into the public domain? That depends on the jurisdiction.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    "What do you mean by "give up his rights"? Whether he can allow other people to use the patented idea?" My understanding is that someone needs to hold a patent, be it a non-profit or commercial entity. What I wonder is if someone who could file a patent or already holds a patent for an idea could put this idea into the public domain without anybody holding a patent? Does this make sense?
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      > My understanding is that someone needs to hold a patent Well, yeah? I mean, the whole definition of a patent is that it gives someone a monopoly over an idea. A patent without someone holding it would be as sensible a concept as a bank account without a holder. A bank account documents that money is owed to someone. If there is noone who it's owed to, then there isn't a bank account. And if there is noone who holds the monopoly ... then there is no monopoly? > What I wonder is if someone who could file a patent or already holds a patent for an idea could put this idea into the public domain without anybody holding a patent? Depends on what you mean by "public domain". If you own the patent, you get to decide who gets to use the patented idea. Obviously, nothing prevents you from deciding that everyone is allowed to use the idea without any further conditions. That you get to decide that is the whole point of the system.

by redm 9y ago

ocdtrekkie 9y ago

Or at least, that Google would pledge all of their patents if their patents had altruistic goals. There is a tiny number of patents they've pledged not to sue offensively for: https://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/patents/ https://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/patents/ The fact that they have not pledged most of the rest indicates that someone there is maintaining their ability to offensively sue in the future.

ehsankia 9y ago
Have they ever used their parents offensively ever? The only case I know of is the Waymo one, but that was a special case where they had proof of their data being stolen. The other case would be against Microsoft but IIRC Microsoft was the one who started that case so it was technically "defensive" use.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  Companies change. You can't assume that a company not offensively using patents today will not offensively use them tomorrow. If based on some misguided belief of corporate altruism (something that very simply does not exist), you grant a company unwarranted rights, they will come back to abuse them later. Even if you have unwavering trust in Larry Page and Sergey Brin's unquestionable morals (I couldn't say this with a straight face, but anyways), the reality is, they will not run the company forever. If you've noticed something about most patent trolls, they're has-beens. When you can't compete, you sue on patents. Right now, as one of the most valuable companies on the planet with multiple products that are monopolies, obviously that does not describe Google today. But it does describe Google at some date in the future. And when Google's profits are crashing, and they're trying to figure out how to stay in business, some business exec is going to realize that treasure trove of patents can solve all their problems...
  - ehsankia 9y ago
    But we don't live in a perfect world. Someone has to hold this patent. If it isn't Google, it'll be someone else. If you can give me any other company which you think is better situated to hold this copyright, go for it. The system is broken, and this is the best we can do right now.

amelius 9y ago

> If it was for the public good, the patent would be filed via a non-profit that Google can't control. Couldn't they just publish the techniques by some other means? E.g. some scientific journal. I mean, a publication is strong evidence of prior art.

josaka 9y ago
In theory yes, but it's less effective than filing a patent app, letting it publish, and then abandoning. Patent examiners tend to spend more time searching patent prior art because the prior art disclosures tend to be kitchen-sink exercises that make it easier to hit all elements of a claim relative to more targeted technical publications.
epmaybe 9y ago
I've been wondering this, and I'm not a lawyer so I have no experience in this regard. But! If you patent something, and don't have a licensing fee or anything like that, I would imagine that it would deter some patent trolls from getting a false patent and suing people using that technique. Fighting in court costs a lot of money for people like me (and probably you) so anything that keeps me out of court is a good thing.
- amelius 9y ago
  Hmm, so actually we need a different construct. Perhaps USPTO could add a checkbox to the patent form, saying that the patent will not be used aggressively in a court of law. Still not ideal, since I suppose the patent application procedure will cost the same.
  - simias 9y ago
    That would mean that the USPTO tacitly admits the fact that the patent system is broken and they need hacks to work around it. I think that would be strange coming from them. If the patent system was working correctly there would be no need such a thing, either something is patented or it isn't. If it isn't it shouldn't be possible for a third party to patent it post-facto since there's already prior art. At least, that's the spirit of it as far as I'm aware.

zitterbewegung 9y ago

Why not just not patent it if you want it available for everyone? The current version of Google would not enforce the patent. In the future if Google's leadership, organization or position in the market changes someone would be able to obtain the patent and then no one would have the favor.

dnautics 9y ago
Because someone else less scrupulous might. At our current juncture it's impossible to trust that the patent review system will effectively capture prior art events.
- rhino369 9y ago
  Capturing prior art products is hard. But Google could just publish articles describing the technology in a journal. That is solid, easily obtainable prior art.
  - puzzle 9y ago
    You can have all the prior art you want and still end up in court, having to make your case, because you're not the one who got the patent. For what it's worth, and slightly related, there are design mocks on the chromium site that didn't get implemented and always looked like deliberate prior art to me, so I suspect the idea is not new to the lawyers in Mountain View. We don't know what's the rationale here. For all we know, Google might even be OK if the patent is not granted to them, as long as it isn't to anyone else, either. The radio silence is to be expected when lawyercats are involved, unfortunately. [Ex-Google employee, not a lawyer, etc.]
    - rhino369 9y ago
      Getting a patent doesn't mean the patent office doesn't give someone else a patent that more or less covers the same thing.
      - 9y ago

espadrine 9y ago

I don't think the title is positive. I assumed it to mean that Jarek Duda had joined Google, but it is Jarek speaking in the thread. I follow the data compression sphere a bit. It really seems like Google is making a mistake here. From a patent perspective, since ANS is already "prior art", it seems like it doesn't deserve a patent. Presumably Google wants to avoid receiving a misinformed lawsuit about ANS that they would then have to fight to prove that an ANS patent shouldn't be valid. Still, not putting Jarek in the loop (and like he mentions, not engaging with his university more) is wrong. The best takeaway: if anybody is also afraid of Google having a very general patent for using ANS (both tANS and rANS) in image and video compression and can explain why the above claims are just a natural mix of known methods: go to: https://efs.uspto.gov/efile/portal/efs-unregistered https://efs.uspto.gov/efile/portal/efs-unregistered select "Existing application/patent" and then "Third-Party Preissuance Submission under 37 CFR 1.290" as "Application number" enter: 15/370840 "Confirmation number": 5111

redm 9y ago
"I don't think the title is positive." The title of the post was changed. It used to read that they were patenting for the public good.

DannyBee 9y ago

"it appears to me that Google is patenting it so that they have the patent, not for purely altruistic reasons" This is not correct. In fact, as far as i know, the code was already open sourced, and the patent would end up released as part of AV1/etc anyway. "If it was for the public good, the patent would be filed via a non-profit that Google can't control." It'll be released that way, so who cares who files and pays the fees? You really don't want non-profits filing patents. Really. This is pretty much the most horrible thing i can think of. It's infinitely easier to keep them from going bad (Example: MPEG-LA) if you can make their corporate bylaws, etc, prevent them from filing patents.

xiphmont 9y ago
>You really don't want non-profits filing patents. Really. >This is pretty much the most horrible thing i can think of. >It's infinitely easier to keep them from going bad (Example: >MPEG-LA) if you can make their corporate bylaws, etc, >prevent them from filing patents. ? Non-profits are corporations. They have by-laws. They also have several advantages over for-profits in the case of dissolution; eg, you can set up a non-profit so that the IP they hold is not simply sold to the highest bidder. FTR, Xiph.Org is a registered 501(c)3 non-profit, and we hold patents.
- DannyBee 9y ago
  Holding is different than filing. As I said, i'm fine with holding, just not filing. For precisely the reason you say. Non-profits can in fact, "go bad" the same as any other corporation. If they can only hold patents, and not file them, you at least cut off a source of that happening. Is it possible to work around? So is anything in the legal world. But it makes for a nice barrier.

maxxxxx 9y ago

Just wondering: Can a patent holder give up his rights and invalidate the patent? Or can a copyright holder put his work into the public domain?

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> Can a patent holder give up his rights What do you mean by "give up his rights"? Whether he can allow other people to use the patented idea? > and invalidate the patent? What do you mean by "invalidate"? Whether they can show the patent office prior art to their own patent and ask them to for that reason invalidate the patent? > Or can a copyright holder put his work into the public domain? That depends on the jurisdiction.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  "What do you mean by "give up his rights"? Whether he can allow other people to use the patented idea?" My understanding is that someone needs to hold a patent, be it a non-profit or commercial entity. What I wonder is if someone who could file a patent or already holds a patent for an idea could put this idea into the public domain without anybody holding a patent? Does this make sense?
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    > My understanding is that someone needs to hold a patent Well, yeah? I mean, the whole definition of a patent is that it gives someone a monopoly over an idea. A patent without someone holding it would be as sensible a concept as a bank account without a holder. A bank account documents that money is owed to someone. If there is noone who it's owed to, then there isn't a bank account. And if there is noone who holds the monopoly ... then there is no monopoly? > What I wonder is if someone who could file a patent or already holds a patent for an idea could put this idea into the public domain without anybody holding a patent? Depends on what you mean by "public domain". If you own the patent, you get to decide who gets to use the patented idea. Obviously, nothing prevents you from deciding that everyone is allowed to use the idea without any further conditions. That you get to decide that is the whole point of the system.