5 ms·

That's Fraunhofer for you. In the early days of MP3, all MP3 rippers and players were built off of their implementation. Hardware and software companies had t

That's Fraunhofer for you. In the early days of MP3, all MP3 rippers and players were built off of their implementation. Hardware and software companies had to license in order to play MP3 files. As such there was not native support for MP3's for quite some time. In the late 90's right around the explosion of MP3's on the internet, Fraunhofer was going after companies for doing so. In my humble opinion, that license mess set back innovation in the portable audio space by a good 5 years.

grishka 6y ago
> In my humble opinion, that license mess set back innovation in the portable audio space by a good 5 years. Seeing all this, I'm convinced that copyright in general and patent system in particular does more harm than good by slowing down the technical progress of the humanity as a whole for the sake of some already rich people becoming a bit richer. The initial idea behind patent system was sensible, but the way it's abused now... I mean, it could work in today's world as intended if patents lasted a year or two, not what is effectively eternity.
- trentnix 6y ago
  Seeing all this, I'm convinced that copyright in general and patent system in particular does more harm than good by slowing down the technical progress of the humanity as a whole for the sake of some already rich people becoming a bit richer There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. There are certainly abuses in the copyright, trademark, and patent systems. But throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not the answer. Identifying the abuses and improving the system is the answer. Perhaps that progress won't happen at the rate you'd prefer, but it's significantly better than burning the whole thing to the ground.
  - balls187 6y ago
    > Perhaps that progress won't happen at the rate you'd prefer, but it's significantly better than burning the whole thing to the ground. Changing patent length (pc's suggestion) is hardly seems like burning the whole thing to the ground. In the US, if I understand correctly, there are ways to defend against patent abuse, though it typically involves costly legal fees. Fees many cannot justify in spending. Addressing patent challenges may be a way to protect innovators, both those who should gain reward for their innovations, and those who seek to grain reward by building upon innovations.
    - reaperducer 6y ago
      In the US, if I understand correctly, there are ways to defend against patent abuse That's the key: In the U.S. Good luck stopping someone infringing on your patient in a good number of other countries.
  - dylan604 6y ago
    > There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. What it does do though is allow someone to start from zero, and catch up to the rest of the competition very fast and cheap. They can then offer their "product" cheaper in order to gain market share. As long as they are getting/keeping customers, there's no need to innovate. You can have a viable business without spending tons of cash on R&D, and if you're making money that way, who cares? *I am no way endorsing this kind of business model, but it exists and does well.
  - zucker42 6y ago
    > There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. For one, this claim suffers from a correlation/causation issue. But also, do you have an actual citation for research which shows this is true?
    - waterhouse 6y ago
      Chapter 8 [1] of Against Intellectual Monopoly, "Does Intellectual Monopoly Increase Innovation?" looks into this, including comparing countries with stronger patent laws vs weaker laws. The results seem pretty decidedly mixed. [1] http://www.dklevine.com/papers/ip.ch.8.m1004.pdf http://www.dklevine.com/papers/ip.ch.8.m1004.pdf
  - rubber_duck 6y ago
    >There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. Comparable examples being ?
  - vmception 6y ago
    uh China is doing pretty awesome so thats one big massive outlier distorting the entire supposition
    - WanderPanda 6y ago
      isn’t China still mostly piggybacking on foreign innovation?
      - vmception 6y ago
        I wouldn't say mostly. It happens and is a predictable thing that will happen with software and hardware. People also build their own things there. It is a very large market with multiple tech hubs, servicing itself.
      - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
        They have inveated in manufacturing, Solar, Nulcear and a number of other areas to the extent where they are now world leaders. You can debate relative merits, but if you rank countries it certai ly is doomg better than most.
  - m12k 6y ago
    > There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. That's not necessarily so - for example, during the industrial revolution, Germany largely overtook the British in mechanical engineering skill during a period where the British had copyright but before the Germans got it: https://www.wired.com/2010/08/copyright-germany-britain/ https://www.wired.com/2010/08/copyright-germany-britain/ Also, it's quite possible the causation goes the other way: A society might not succeed at innovation because of IP laws - it's just as possible that because a society has succeeded at innovation, it passes IP legislation, in order to 'kick away the ladder'. But just like regulatory capture shows in general, legislation that helps yesterday's winners seek rent is not necessarily the same (and is often in fact the opposite) of legislation to help tomorrow's winners see the light of day.
  - cure 6y ago
    > There are certainly abuses in the copyright, trademark, and patent systems. But throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not the answer. Identifying the abuses and improving the system is the answer. That sounds nice and reasonable, in theory. In practice, all the money is behind expanding the copyright and patent systems. When is the last time the duration of copyright terms was shortened? When is the last time the patent system was adapted to be less draconian and less protective of those poor, poor multinational corporations that somehow end up holding all those patents? Spoiler alert - that has happened exactly never. Instead, all we get is 'harmonization' which always means extending terms and giving those laws more teeth, to match the strictest law implemented anywhere in the world. Steamboat Willy's copyright expires January 1st, 2024. How much do you want to bet that Disney will be pushing for another copyright term extension before then? > Perhaps that progress won't happen at the rate you'd prefer, but it's significantly better than burning the whole thing to the ground. The current systems only ever get stricter. Where are the much shorter terms? Where is the recognition that cooperation and remixing fosters innovation and progress and as such should be encouraged, not punished? Where is the PTO following the actual law that says math and logic (i.e. software) are not patentable? Etc, etc, etc. The abuses have been very well documented over the past several decades. There has been zero progress on incremental improvements. Tell me again how you propose we improve the system without a drastic overhaul?
  - centimeter 6y ago
    You've flipped the causal relationship - societies capable of rapid invention are also going to be more likely to be legalistic.
  - znpy 6y ago
    > There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. I'm not 100% sure about this. Just look at how hard China laughs at intellectual property and copyright in general and tell me if you still think the same. Not being burdened by expensive license fees is a competitive advantage. But then again, also not having to care about workers right is...
- charwalker 6y ago
  A probable reason is the length of time patents and especially copyright law applies, at least in the US. Although we are seeing issues with 70+ year copyright with extensions after the creators death, digital technology just moves way too fast compared to classical technology. By the time a classic patent expired, other firms may have built the infrastructure to create a generic copy or even advanced the science like with light bulbs. Digital tech moves quickly and software that can be distributed across the planet in seconds and make billions in its first few years is ripe for subversion and knock offs. Maybe if digital patents applied to much more specific applications then competition could build their own version using a new code base and compete?
- mlyle 6y ago
  > I mean, it could work in today's world as intended if patents lasted a year or two, not what is effectively eternity. This needs to vary based on field. Some areas, like drugs, take forever to get to market and have exorbitant development costs to recover. (Though, there, other abuses need to get fixed, like renewing patent lifetime with slightly different applications or formulation.
- kindall 6y ago
  US patent laws sensibly state that only individuals, not corporations, may be awarded patents. Unfortunately, most companies require that any patent awarded to an engineer in their employ is automatically assigned to the company. Get rid of that loophole and employees will be able to license their patents as they see fit. Of course this is fraught with practical difficulties, but some kind of compromise could be reached. Never happen, obviously.
  - amluto 6y ago
    Do you really want to try to get individual licenses from every single person who worked on video codecs from in the last 20 years so you can legally compress video?
    - grishka 6y ago
      While that would be somewhat harder, I bet most engineers are much less greedy than companies that employ them.
      - lolc 6y ago
        I see you are unfamiliar with the Wright brothers patent war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war
swinglock 6y ago
> In my humble opinion, that license mess set back innovation in the portable audio space by a good 5 years. Or did it push it forward? If not for the licensing at the time, would it have been developed? Would it be allowed to be used by anyone just paying for the technology?
- pbar 6y ago
  That’s not edgy enough for HN ;)
makotech222 6y ago
Congrats, you have just discovered 'Rent-seeking'. It is a fundamental aspect of capitalist economies. Landlords do the same for housing, business owners do the same to production. If licensing MP3s set back audio space innovation by 5 years, imagine what the rest of the economy would look like if rent-seeking/private property were abolished completely.
legulere 6y ago
On the other hand those licenses finance the development in the first place. MP3 by the way was done by another Fraunhofer institute.

grishka 6y ago

> In my humble opinion, that license mess set back innovation in the portable audio space by a good 5 years. Seeing all this, I'm convinced that copyright in general and patent system in particular does more harm than good by slowing down the technical progress of the humanity as a whole for the sake of some already rich people becoming a bit richer. The initial idea behind patent system was sensible, but the way it's abused now... I mean, it could work in today's world as intended if patents lasted a year or two, not what is effectively eternity.

trentnix 6y ago
Seeing all this, I'm convinced that copyright in general and patent system in particular does more harm than good by slowing down the technical progress of the humanity as a whole for the sake of some already rich people becoming a bit richer There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. There are certainly abuses in the copyright, trademark, and patent systems. But throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not the answer. Identifying the abuses and improving the system is the answer. Perhaps that progress won't happen at the rate you'd prefer, but it's significantly better than burning the whole thing to the ground.
- balls187 6y ago
  > Perhaps that progress won't happen at the rate you'd prefer, but it's significantly better than burning the whole thing to the ground. Changing patent length (pc's suggestion) is hardly seems like burning the whole thing to the ground. In the US, if I understand correctly, there are ways to defend against patent abuse, though it typically involves costly legal fees. Fees many cannot justify in spending. Addressing patent challenges may be a way to protect innovators, both those who should gain reward for their innovations, and those who seek to grain reward by building upon innovations.
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    In the US, if I understand correctly, there are ways to defend against patent abuse That's the key: In the U.S. Good luck stopping someone infringing on your patient in a good number of other countries.
- dylan604 6y ago
  > There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. What it does do though is allow someone to start from zero, and catch up to the rest of the competition very fast and cheap. They can then offer their "product" cheaper in order to gain market share. As long as they are getting/keeping customers, there's no need to innovate. You can have a viable business without spending tons of cash on R&D, and if you're making money that way, who cares? *I am no way endorsing this kind of business model, but it exists and does well.
- zucker42 6y ago
  > There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. For one, this claim suffers from a correlation/causation issue. But also, do you have an actual citation for research which shows this is true?
  - waterhouse 6y ago
    Chapter 8 [1] of Against Intellectual Monopoly, "Does Intellectual Monopoly Increase Innovation?" looks into this, including comparing countries with stronger patent laws vs weaker laws. The results seem pretty decidedly mixed. [1] http://www.dklevine.com/papers/ip.ch.8.m1004.pdf http://www.dklevine.com/papers/ip.ch.8.m1004.pdf
- rubber_duck 6y ago
  >There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. Comparable examples being ?
- vmception 6y ago
  uh China is doing pretty awesome so thats one big massive outlier distorting the entire supposition
  - WanderPanda 6y ago
    isn’t China still mostly piggybacking on foreign innovation?
    - vmception 6y ago
      I wouldn't say mostly. It happens and is a predictable thing that will happen with software and hardware. People also build their own things there. It is a very large market with multiple tech hubs, servicing itself.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      They have inveated in manufacturing, Solar, Nulcear and a number of other areas to the extent where they are now world leaders. You can debate relative merits, but if you rank countries it certai ly is doomg better than most.
- m12k 6y ago
  > There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. That's not necessarily so - for example, during the industrial revolution, Germany largely overtook the British in mechanical engineering skill during a period where the British had copyright but before the Germans got it: https://www.wired.com/2010/08/copyright-germany-britain/ https://www.wired.com/2010/08/copyright-germany-britain/ Also, it's quite possible the causation goes the other way: A society might not succeed at innovation because of IP laws - it's just as possible that because a society has succeeded at innovation, it passes IP legislation, in order to 'kick away the ladder'. But just like regulatory capture shows in general, legislation that helps yesterday's winners seek rent is not necessarily the same (and is often in fact the opposite) of legislation to help tomorrow's winners see the light of day.
- cure 6y ago
  > There are certainly abuses in the copyright, trademark, and patent systems. But throwing out the baby with the bathwater is not the answer. Identifying the abuses and improving the system is the answer. That sounds nice and reasonable, in theory. In practice, all the money is behind expanding the copyright and patent systems. When is the last time the duration of copyright terms was shortened? When is the last time the patent system was adapted to be less draconian and less protective of those poor, poor multinational corporations that somehow end up holding all those patents? Spoiler alert - that has happened exactly never. Instead, all we get is 'harmonization' which always means extending terms and giving those laws more teeth, to match the strictest law implemented anywhere in the world. Steamboat Willy's copyright expires January 1st, 2024. How much do you want to bet that Disney will be pushing for another copyright term extension before then? > Perhaps that progress won't happen at the rate you'd prefer, but it's significantly better than burning the whole thing to the ground. The current systems only ever get stricter. Where are the much shorter terms? Where is the recognition that cooperation and remixing fosters innovation and progress and as such should be encouraged, not punished? Where is the PTO following the actual law that says math and logic (i.e. software) are not patentable? Etc, etc, etc. The abuses have been very well documented over the past several decades. There has been zero progress on incremental improvements. Tell me again how you propose we improve the system without a drastic overhaul?
- centimeter 6y ago
  You've flipped the causal relationship - societies capable of rapid invention are also going to be more likely to be legalistic.
- znpy 6y ago
  > There are plenty of societies that don't respect intellectual property and copyright. And those societies don't innovate at the rate as those who do. I'm not 100% sure about this. Just look at how hard China laughs at intellectual property and copyright in general and tell me if you still think the same. Not being burdened by expensive license fees is a competitive advantage. But then again, also not having to care about workers right is...
charwalker 6y ago
A probable reason is the length of time patents and especially copyright law applies, at least in the US. Although we are seeing issues with 70+ year copyright with extensions after the creators death, digital technology just moves way too fast compared to classical technology. By the time a classic patent expired, other firms may have built the infrastructure to create a generic copy or even advanced the science like with light bulbs. Digital tech moves quickly and software that can be distributed across the planet in seconds and make billions in its first few years is ripe for subversion and knock offs. Maybe if digital patents applied to much more specific applications then competition could build their own version using a new code base and compete?
mlyle 6y ago
> I mean, it could work in today's world as intended if patents lasted a year or two, not what is effectively eternity. This needs to vary based on field. Some areas, like drugs, take forever to get to market and have exorbitant development costs to recover. (Though, there, other abuses need to get fixed, like renewing patent lifetime with slightly different applications or formulation.
kindall 6y ago
US patent laws sensibly state that only individuals, not corporations, may be awarded patents. Unfortunately, most companies require that any patent awarded to an engineer in their employ is automatically assigned to the company. Get rid of that loophole and employees will be able to license their patents as they see fit. Of course this is fraught with practical difficulties, but some kind of compromise could be reached. Never happen, obviously.
- amluto 6y ago
  Do you really want to try to get individual licenses from every single person who worked on video codecs from in the last 20 years so you can legally compress video?
  - grishka 6y ago
    While that would be somewhat harder, I bet most engineers are much less greedy than companies that employ them.
    - lolc 6y ago
      I see you are unfamiliar with the Wright brothers patent war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war

swinglock 6y ago

> In my humble opinion, that license mess set back innovation in the portable audio space by a good 5 years. Or did it push it forward? If not for the licensing at the time, would it have been developed? Would it be allowed to be used by anyone just paying for the technology?

pbar 6y ago
That’s not edgy enough for HN ;)

makotech222 6y ago

Congrats, you have just discovered 'Rent-seeking'. It is a fundamental aspect of capitalist economies. Landlords do the same for housing, business owners do the same to production. If licensing MP3s set back audio space innovation by 5 years, imagine what the rest of the economy would look like if rent-seeking/private property were abolished completely.

legulere 6y ago

On the other hand those licenses finance the development in the first place. MP3 by the way was done by another Fraunhofer institute.