3 ms·

"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,

"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.