15 ms·

It's incredible that the MPEG-LA mafia has gotten away with 23 patents on a system of mathematical operations. Math is explicitly outlined as non-patentable. Wh

It's incredible that the MPEG-LA mafia has gotten away with 23 patents on a system of mathematical operations. Math is explicitly outlined as non-patentable. While this extends to all software patents, I'm astounded that even this very narrow case hasn't been challenged on its face. We can't move to unencumbered codecs quickly enough.

vulcan01 6y ago
My understanding (IANAL) is that although maths are not patentable, the use of maths is – much as science is not patentable, but the use of science (technology) is.
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  Exactly this - otherwise inventions in physics would not be patentable (such as the laser - a purely theoretical construct long before it was engineered, same as the transistor), or chemicals (chemistry follows from physics, which is made of math..) And on and on. Using math to engineer solutions to problems is patentable.
  - gaius_baltar 6y ago
    > chemistry follows from physics, which is made of math Is that a reference to XKCD #435 ? ;)
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    When you patent a laser, the patent doesn't stop someone from calculating the laser's results. With math, you are prohibited from making certain calculations; very different.
    - vulcan01 6y ago
      Again, IANAL. But my understanding is using ideas in a patent for "experimental purposes" is legally protected: https://nysstlc.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NYSTAR-The-Experimental-Use-Exemptions-to-Patent-Infringement-Fall-2005.pdf https://nysstlc.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NYSTAR-Th...
    - darawk 6y ago
      You aren't prohibited from doing the calculations per se. You are prohibited from doing them for a particular purpose, specifically video playback, in this case. If you just want to sit down with a pencil and paper and calculate H264 by yourself, there's nothing illegal about that. It only becomes illegal when you embed it into a video player.
- dclowd9901 6y ago
  Right, but encoding video is literally just pushing numbers through a function, is it not?
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    It's more concrete than that there's an input, from a computer, with some sort of physical storage, and an output, again with some storage, that ultimately is for viewing. The goal is to do stuff with those numbers outside of the computer, ie create light patterns on a viewing medium.
    - nybble41 6y ago
      > It's more concrete than that there's an input, from a computer, with some sort of physical storage, and an output, again with some storage, that ultimately is for viewing. None of which is novel, or even directly related to the subject of the patent. The patent isn't about the input mechanism, the computing hardware, the storage media, or the display tech. It's about the abstract math that is carried out mechanically by these existing computing elements. Evaluating a mathematical formula and visualizing the results as a grid of colored squares—all by hand—should never be found to infringe on anyone's patent. (This appears to be relatively uncontroversial.) Doing the same, only faster thanks to the aid of a computer, should be similarly exempt from all patent infringement claims. The patent doesn't cover the computer, which already existed. All that's left is the math.
      - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
        I have a lot of sympathy with your position and conclusion. Really I was trying to explain the position applied, it's not what I would do. Ultimately, legislatures (or those who control them) want to encourage developments that lead to faster, cheaper (less energy intensive) methods of encryption and encoding and so the law will be wiggled until it fits this need. Hence in Europe we effectively have, AIUI, a variation of the long-standing "technical effect" requirement where if the development can be concretised it can be patented. Things are slightly tighter in UK law and much looser in USA; I don't follow patent law in other countries.
chrisseaton 6y ago
It's the application of the maths for a purpose, not the maths itself.
dheera 6y ago
Maybe it's the future of software will be built in a jurisdiction of the world that doesn't take a shit about software patents. All software is just a big number after all.
- mandelken 6y ago
  Perhaps in China? I support your sentiment, but most countries with strong software communities appear to have strong software patents (US, EU, Taiwan, SK). Maybe the only outlier is Russia (and possibly India)?
  - dheera 6y ago
    I'd say China, India, Russia all have pretty strong software communities and are good candidates. China also has a strong hardware community as well.
  - dariosalvi78 6y ago
    in the EU software is not patentable, though many companies find loopholes: https://fsfe.org/activities/swpat/swpat.en.html https://fsfe.org/activities/swpat/swpat.en.html
- granzymes 6y ago
  Technically all information is just a big number.
  - ric2b 6y ago
    And that number is 42. Now the question is how to write all the functions to decode what we want from it.
    - BlueTemplar 6y ago
      Use this encoder : https://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/lenpeg.html https://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/lenpeg.html It allows for compression to a negative, unbounded number of octets. I guess you just have to run it in reverse ?
chacha2 6y ago
Is CocaCola a patent on chemistry?
- ducksuck 6y ago
  It's a trade secret.
- tims33 6y ago
  Coca-Cola is a trade secret. No one has figured out their recipe to date.
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    So with Coca-cola, the ingredients are fully known, it's just the process that's secret?
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > No one has figured out their recipe to date > So ... the ingredients are fully known ... ? No... because nobody has figured out their recipe. They just said that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula
    - laoganmaplz 6y ago
      Also the proportions. While (in the US at least) manufacturers are required to list their ingredients in the order of greatest proportion to least proportion, they are not required to disclose what those proportions are, which also adds some difficulty to reverse-engineering the recipe.
      - sgerenser 6y ago
        I think the biggest catch is being able to throw potentially thousands of different substances under the generic “natural flavorings.” Read the Coca Cola ingredients list and you certainly don’t see “coca leaf extract” on it.
    - 6y ago
djsumdog 6y ago
So are companies in New Zealand not bound by H264 licensing fees? They banned software patents years ago.
- centimeter 6y ago
  French companies are not bound. This is why VLC and other video players are developed by french devs.
  - grodeni 6y ago
    Is this true? Software patent is a gray area in the EU and I would not recommend to take for granted that European companies do not have to pay the h.264 license, even if they only distribute in Europe. Concerning VLC, their FAQ [1] does not mention the EU aspect: they say that they cannot pay for the license because the software is free and that "the end-user becomes responsible for complying with the licensing and royalty requirements" (whether this would be defensible in court is debatable) [1] https://wiki.videolan.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions/#What_about_personal.2Fcommercial_usage.3F https://wiki.videolan.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions/#What_a...
    - ric2b 6y ago
      > the end-user becomes responsible for complying with the licensing and royalty requirements Exactly. If you're using h.264 without a license in a country that requires it, it doesn't matter that some french people wrote the software for you. That's all they're saying.
    - zinekeller 6y ago
      According to VideoLan's Legal team (in the French section of https://www.videolan.org/legal.html https://www.videolan.org/legal.html under Brevets): Patents According to article L 611-10 of the French Intellectual Property Code, software patents are not allowed under French law. At the [EEA] level, Article 52 of the European Patent Convention has also excluded the protection of computer programs. As a result, any software supplied by VideoLAN is not subject to licenses on any software patent, regardless of its origin. The relevant section of the French IP law states that: 1. New inventions, in all fields of technology, involving an innovative approach with industrial application are patentable. 2. The following are not considered as inventions within the meaning of the first Section of this Article in particular: a) The discoveries of scientific theories as well as mathematical methods; b) Aesthetic creations; c) Intellectual plans, principles and methods in the areas of sport or economic activities, as well as computer programs; d) Presentation of information. 3. The provisions of Section 2 of this Article shall exclude the patentability of the elements listed in the said provisions only to the extent that the patent application or patent concerns only one of these elements considered as such. 4. Subject to the provisions of Articles L. 611-16 to L. 611-19, inventions relating to a product consisting wholly or partly of biological material, or to a process for producing, processing or using biological material, shall be patentable under the conditions laid down in Section 1. Biological material is considered to be material that contains genetic information and can reproduce itself or be reproduced in a biological system. Interpret that as you wish.
ChrisLomont 6y ago
Algorithms are not simply math, in the same way mechanical engineering is not simply math. The patents are the result of engineering to create very precise and complicated tools. And if it were simply math, then there would be no way to work around those patents, which plenty of open source codecs have done in various directions. Unfortunately, most open source codecs are not as good at compression, mostly since the patented ones have a massively bigger pool of engineering behind them from dozens of companies banding together their work to develop best of breed solutions. And eventually the patents expire, and the world gets these codecs free to use.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  > And if it were simply math, then there would be no way to work around those patents, which plenty of open source codecs have done in various directions. What makes you say that? Math usually leaves many ways of calculating the same thing. > dozens of companies banding together You could probably get a bigger group if there wasn't a patent vs. no patent conflict. > And eventually the patents expire, and the world gets these codecs free to use. How many of these techniques wouldn't have been reinvented a dozen times over in less time, if the original patenter never existed?
  - ChrisLomont 6y ago
    >How many of these techniques wouldn't have been reinvented a dozen times over in less time, if the original patenter never existed? In the exact same details? None. There is an extreme number of parameters and details in each of these codecs. How many times have you or a small band of people invented a world class video compression codec? They take a huge number of people and a lot of funding to create. That funding, in many cases, was paid for by places like Fraunhofer that has invented many such codecs before anyone else, and they do so because they know they will get a revenue stream to pay for the work. If these things were easy to make, there would be constant new ones, each improving the last one. This is not the case - they take years and the effort of a lot of people to make new ones that are better enough to slowly replace old ones. A simple way to see it - if these were so easy that people would invent a dozen if only patents didn't stop them, then people would invent those anyway and publish them for fun. I am unaware of ANY world class video codecs that some hacker invented in their basement, and the only ones close to best in breed were funded to the tune of the prices above by huge companies that want to use their leverage to move markets, for their own gain. These things are in no way trivial to create. > You could probably get a bigger group if there wasn't a patent vs. no patent conflict. Removing a funding channel means there would be less, not more, incentive to pay tens of millions to billions to develop one. If you pay the R&D and anyone else can simply take the work and not pay for it, then less companies will work on it.
kmeisthax 6y ago
Strictly speaking, pretty much any patentable invention is going to use maths. Video codec related patents aren't just "I patent the discrete fourier transform". It's "here's how you can use frequency domain transforms, texture lookups, entropy coding, and other things in order to build a low-bitrate video codec". There's detailed explanations of what the invention does and what is legally being claimed, which will usually be a quite-small improvement on an existing technology. Many of the standards-essential ITU/MPEG patents have active litigation surrounding them, and the defendents would have been daft to not try to challenge video codec patents on exactly the sort of basis. The fact that the patents still stand would indicate that they are more than just maths.
- akersten 6y ago
  > The fact that the patents still stand would indicate that they are more than just maths. I insist that the fact that the patents still stand is rather an indication of the systemic failure of the court system to enforce the non-patentability of what is ultimately still purely mathematical operations. Sure, any patent-able invention uses math. That's a distraction. These patents are on the formulae (the data transforms) and their use itself. You're on the right track pointing out that it would be ridiculous to patent the discrete Fourier transform. These kind of mathematical discoveries should not be encumbered, they should be free for anyone to use and implement.
  - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
    This is my personal opinion and in no way relates to my employment: I rather think that the courts have enforced the line the legislators endorse, which supports their ends of promoting industry: It's not a mistake of the court system, inventions that apply maths to achieve technical gains are patentable and maths itself remains un-patentable. The courts seem largely to properly discern where that line lies. Developing maths that saves bandwidth, storage, and energy, for example, is beneficial and countries use the patent system to encourage that.
  - arp242 6y ago
    If I invent a new type of chair that can be stable with two legs, then the way this operates is essentially just a mathematical formula, no? No one would challenge that this would be patentable, and any patent application would describe the mathematics of it, and the usage of this mathematics would be covered in the patent. I don't really like patents in general, but I don't really see this sharp distinction to be honest and I've always felt that the case against software patents in particular as a special case was rather weak.
ksec 6y ago
We can argue about the patents system all day. But we can call it a fact this it is not just "23" patents. I am not even sure how they arrive at the 23 numbers. I was thinking if it was some kind of joke that doesn't work with my /s detector.

vulcan01 6y ago

My understanding (IANAL) is that although maths are not patentable, the use of maths is – much as science is not patentable, but the use of science (technology) is.

ChrisLomont 6y ago
Exactly this - otherwise inventions in physics would not be patentable (such as the laser - a purely theoretical construct long before it was engineered, same as the transistor), or chemicals (chemistry follows from physics, which is made of math..) And on and on. Using math to engineer solutions to problems is patentable.
- gaius_baltar 6y ago
  > chemistry follows from physics, which is made of math Is that a reference to XKCD #435 ? ;)
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  When you patent a laser, the patent doesn't stop someone from calculating the laser's results. With math, you are prohibited from making certain calculations; very different.
  - vulcan01 6y ago
    Again, IANAL. But my understanding is using ideas in a patent for "experimental purposes" is legally protected: https://nysstlc.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NYSTAR-The-Experimental-Use-Exemptions-to-Patent-Infringement-Fall-2005.pdf https://nysstlc.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/NYSTAR-Th...
  - darawk 6y ago
    You aren't prohibited from doing the calculations per se. You are prohibited from doing them for a particular purpose, specifically video playback, in this case. If you just want to sit down with a pencil and paper and calculate H264 by yourself, there's nothing illegal about that. It only becomes illegal when you embed it into a video player.
dclowd9901 6y ago
Right, but encoding video is literally just pushing numbers through a function, is it not?
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  It's more concrete than that there's an input, from a computer, with some sort of physical storage, and an output, again with some storage, that ultimately is for viewing. The goal is to do stuff with those numbers outside of the computer, ie create light patterns on a viewing medium.
  - nybble41 6y ago
    > It's more concrete than that there's an input, from a computer, with some sort of physical storage, and an output, again with some storage, that ultimately is for viewing. None of which is novel, or even directly related to the subject of the patent. The patent isn't about the input mechanism, the computing hardware, the storage media, or the display tech. It's about the abstract math that is carried out mechanically by these existing computing elements. Evaluating a mathematical formula and visualizing the results as a grid of colored squares—all by hand—should never be found to infringe on anyone's patent. (This appears to be relatively uncontroversial.) Doing the same, only faster thanks to the aid of a computer, should be similarly exempt from all patent infringement claims. The patent doesn't cover the computer, which already existed. All that's left is the math.
    - pbhjpbhj 6y ago
      I have a lot of sympathy with your position and conclusion. Really I was trying to explain the position applied, it's not what I would do. Ultimately, legislatures (or those who control them) want to encourage developments that lead to faster, cheaper (less energy intensive) methods of encryption and encoding and so the law will be wiggled until it fits this need. Hence in Europe we effectively have, AIUI, a variation of the long-standing "technical effect" requirement where if the development can be concretised it can be patented. Things are slightly tighter in UK law and much looser in USA; I don't follow patent law in other countries.

chrisseaton 6y ago

It's the application of the maths for a purpose, not the maths itself.

dheera 6y ago

Maybe it's the future of software will be built in a jurisdiction of the world that doesn't take a shit about software patents. All software is just a big number after all.

mandelken 6y ago
Perhaps in China? I support your sentiment, but most countries with strong software communities appear to have strong software patents (US, EU, Taiwan, SK). Maybe the only outlier is Russia (and possibly India)?
- dheera 6y ago
  I'd say China, India, Russia all have pretty strong software communities and are good candidates. China also has a strong hardware community as well.
- dariosalvi78 6y ago
  in the EU software is not patentable, though many companies find loopholes: https://fsfe.org/activities/swpat/swpat.en.html https://fsfe.org/activities/swpat/swpat.en.html
granzymes 6y ago
Technically all information is just a big number.
- ric2b 6y ago
  And that number is 42. Now the question is how to write all the functions to decode what we want from it.
  - BlueTemplar 6y ago
    Use this encoder : https://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/lenpeg.html https://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/lenpeg.html It allows for compression to a negative, unbounded number of octets. I guess you just have to run it in reverse ?

chacha2 6y ago

Is CocaCola a patent on chemistry?

ducksuck 6y ago
It's a trade secret.
tims33 6y ago
Coca-Cola is a trade secret. No one has figured out their recipe to date.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  So with Coca-cola, the ingredients are fully known, it's just the process that's secret?
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > No one has figured out their recipe to date > So ... the ingredients are fully known ... ? No... because nobody has figured out their recipe. They just said that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca-Cola_formula
  - laoganmaplz 6y ago
    Also the proportions. While (in the US at least) manufacturers are required to list their ingredients in the order of greatest proportion to least proportion, they are not required to disclose what those proportions are, which also adds some difficulty to reverse-engineering the recipe.
    - sgerenser 6y ago
      I think the biggest catch is being able to throw potentially thousands of different substances under the generic “natural flavorings.” Read the Coca Cola ingredients list and you certainly don’t see “coca leaf extract” on it.
  - 6y ago

djsumdog 6y ago

So are companies in New Zealand not bound by H264 licensing fees? They banned software patents years ago.

centimeter 6y ago
French companies are not bound. This is why VLC and other video players are developed by french devs.
- grodeni 6y ago
  Is this true? Software patent is a gray area in the EU and I would not recommend to take for granted that European companies do not have to pay the h.264 license, even if they only distribute in Europe. Concerning VLC, their FAQ [1] does not mention the EU aspect: they say that they cannot pay for the license because the software is free and that "the end-user becomes responsible for complying with the licensing and royalty requirements" (whether this would be defensible in court is debatable) [1] https://wiki.videolan.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions/#What_about_personal.2Fcommercial_usage.3F https://wiki.videolan.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions/#What_a...
  - ric2b 6y ago
    > the end-user becomes responsible for complying with the licensing and royalty requirements Exactly. If you're using h.264 without a license in a country that requires it, it doesn't matter that some french people wrote the software for you. That's all they're saying.
  - zinekeller 6y ago
    According to VideoLan's Legal team (in the French section of https://www.videolan.org/legal.html https://www.videolan.org/legal.html under Brevets): Patents According to article L 611-10 of the French Intellectual Property Code, software patents are not allowed under French law. At the [EEA] level, Article 52 of the European Patent Convention has also excluded the protection of computer programs. As a result, any software supplied by VideoLAN is not subject to licenses on any software patent, regardless of its origin. The relevant section of the French IP law states that: 1. New inventions, in all fields of technology, involving an innovative approach with industrial application are patentable. 2. The following are not considered as inventions within the meaning of the first Section of this Article in particular: a) The discoveries of scientific theories as well as mathematical methods; b) Aesthetic creations; c) Intellectual plans, principles and methods in the areas of sport or economic activities, as well as computer programs; d) Presentation of information. 3. The provisions of Section 2 of this Article shall exclude the patentability of the elements listed in the said provisions only to the extent that the patent application or patent concerns only one of these elements considered as such. 4. Subject to the provisions of Articles L. 611-16 to L. 611-19, inventions relating to a product consisting wholly or partly of biological material, or to a process for producing, processing or using biological material, shall be patentable under the conditions laid down in Section 1. Biological material is considered to be material that contains genetic information and can reproduce itself or be reproduced in a biological system. Interpret that as you wish.

ChrisLomont 6y ago

Algorithms are not simply math, in the same way mechanical engineering is not simply math. The patents are the result of engineering to create very precise and complicated tools. And if it were simply math, then there would be no way to work around those patents, which plenty of open source codecs have done in various directions. Unfortunately, most open source codecs are not as good at compression, mostly since the patented ones have a massively bigger pool of engineering behind them from dozens of companies banding together their work to develop best of breed solutions. And eventually the patents expire, and the world gets these codecs free to use.

Dylan16807 6y ago
> And if it were simply math, then there would be no way to work around those patents, which plenty of open source codecs have done in various directions. What makes you say that? Math usually leaves many ways of calculating the same thing. > dozens of companies banding together You could probably get a bigger group if there wasn't a patent vs. no patent conflict. > And eventually the patents expire, and the world gets these codecs free to use. How many of these techniques wouldn't have been reinvented a dozen times over in less time, if the original patenter never existed?
- ChrisLomont 6y ago
  >How many of these techniques wouldn't have been reinvented a dozen times over in less time, if the original patenter never existed? In the exact same details? None. There is an extreme number of parameters and details in each of these codecs. How many times have you or a small band of people invented a world class video compression codec? They take a huge number of people and a lot of funding to create. That funding, in many cases, was paid for by places like Fraunhofer that has invented many such codecs before anyone else, and they do so because they know they will get a revenue stream to pay for the work. If these things were easy to make, there would be constant new ones, each improving the last one. This is not the case - they take years and the effort of a lot of people to make new ones that are better enough to slowly replace old ones. A simple way to see it - if these were so easy that people would invent a dozen if only patents didn't stop them, then people would invent those anyway and publish them for fun. I am unaware of ANY world class video codecs that some hacker invented in their basement, and the only ones close to best in breed were funded to the tune of the prices above by huge companies that want to use their leverage to move markets, for their own gain. These things are in no way trivial to create. > You could probably get a bigger group if there wasn't a patent vs. no patent conflict. Removing a funding channel means there would be less, not more, incentive to pay tens of millions to billions to develop one. If you pay the R&D and anyone else can simply take the work and not pay for it, then less companies will work on it.

kmeisthax 6y ago

Strictly speaking, pretty much any patentable invention is going to use maths. Video codec related patents aren't just "I patent the discrete fourier transform". It's "here's how you can use frequency domain transforms, texture lookups, entropy coding, and other things in order to build a low-bitrate video codec". There's detailed explanations of what the invention does and what is legally being claimed, which will usually be a quite-small improvement on an existing technology. Many of the standards-essential ITU/MPEG patents have active litigation surrounding them, and the defendents would have been daft to not try to challenge video codec patents on exactly the sort of basis. The fact that the patents still stand would indicate that they are more than just maths.

akersten 6y ago
> The fact that the patents still stand would indicate that they are more than just maths. I insist that the fact that the patents still stand is rather an indication of the systemic failure of the court system to enforce the non-patentability of what is ultimately still purely mathematical operations. Sure, any patent-able invention uses math. That's a distraction. These patents are on the formulae (the data transforms) and their use itself. You're on the right track pointing out that it would be ridiculous to patent the discrete Fourier transform. These kind of mathematical discoveries should not be encumbered, they should be free for anyone to use and implement.
- pbhjpbhj 6y ago
  This is my personal opinion and in no way relates to my employment: I rather think that the courts have enforced the line the legislators endorse, which supports their ends of promoting industry: It's not a mistake of the court system, inventions that apply maths to achieve technical gains are patentable and maths itself remains un-patentable. The courts seem largely to properly discern where that line lies. Developing maths that saves bandwidth, storage, and energy, for example, is beneficial and countries use the patent system to encourage that.
- arp242 6y ago
  If I invent a new type of chair that can be stable with two legs, then the way this operates is essentially just a mathematical formula, no? No one would challenge that this would be patentable, and any patent application would describe the mathematics of it, and the usage of this mathematics would be covered in the patent. I don't really like patents in general, but I don't really see this sharp distinction to be honest and I've always felt that the case against software patents in particular as a special case was rather weak.

ksec 6y ago

We can argue about the patents system all day. But we can call it a fact this it is not just "23" patents. I am not even sure how they arrive at the 23 numbers. I was thinking if it was some kind of joke that doesn't work with my /s detector.