3 ms·

> Algorithms are not simply math, in the same way mechanical engineering is not simply math. Algorithms are _literally_ mathematical objects. C.f. Church-Turin

> Algorithms are not simply math, in the same way mechanical engineering is not simply math. Algorithms are _literally_ mathematical objects. C.f. Church-Turing thesis. > 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. Show me an H.264 codec that works around the patents in the MPEG LA pool. Also software patents are orthogonal to the question of "open source" (which is about copyright). That there is very often no way to work around the patents in an otherwise independent implementation is precisely the problem with Software patents. > 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. Show me the numbers. Because the numbers I know (for example the chart in the blogpost itself) show that x265 is the best codec (or encoder, if it's not a decoder too) for H.265, it self being "open source", better than proprietary alternatives. > And eventually the patents expire, and the world gets these codecs free to use. Even after patents expire, copyright expires in 90 years.

ChrisLomont 6y ago
>Algorithms are _literally_ mathematical objects. C.f. Church-Turing thesis. The Church-Turing thesis is about computability, and has precisely zero to do with if QuickSort or x264 is math. Not a single machine on the planet is an actual Turing machine. So in practice the Church-Turing thesis applies to zero actual computers on earth. They don't fit the definition. So throwing out fancy sounding phrases does not help your argument. As a simple example, theoretically the Halting problem is undecidable on a Turing machine. But on any finite machine the Halting problem is decidable. All physical machines are finite. Thus every physical machine is not a Turing Machine. You might as well argue that reality is based on physics, and physics is based on math, so nothing can be patented. But reality, and especially law, works differently than that. The fact remains that algorithms under certain conditions can be patented, precisely because it is engineering, and because some algorithms require massive investment to develop, and it's worthwhile to inspire companies to invest on the R&D. >> And eventually the patents expire, and the world gets these codecs free to use. > Even after patents expire, copyright expires in 90 years. I didn't say the sourcecode was suddenly free to use. I said the codec, as in the algorithm (which is what can be patented - code cannot), is free once the patent expires. Conflating the two is not useles s -they're orthogonal. I can write code for a non-patented algorithm, and you cannot just take it because that code is automatically copyrighted. But we were discussing patents. >Show me the numbers.... You keep confusing codec to mean a particular implementation of a codec. It does not. H.265 is a codec. x265 is an implementation of the codec. MP3 is a a codec. LAME is an implementation. Codecs can be patented, but not copyrighted. Implementations can be copyrighted, but not patented, but they can use patented ideas. So yes, commercial codecs generally are better than open source. H.264, H.265 were/are both better than any codec released around the same time. MP3 was the same. JPEG was the same. So you're agreeing with me - H265 is the best codec. >Show me the numbers. Here you are: http://compression.ru/ http://compression.ru/

ChrisLomont 6y ago

>Algorithms are _literally_ mathematical objects. C.f. Church-Turing thesis. The Church-Turing thesis is about computability, and has precisely zero to do with if QuickSort or x264 is math. Not a single machine on the planet is an actual Turing machine. So in practice the Church-Turing thesis applies to zero actual computers on earth. They don't fit the definition. So throwing out fancy sounding phrases does not help your argument. As a simple example, theoretically the Halting problem is undecidable on a Turing machine. But on any finite machine the Halting problem is decidable. All physical machines are finite. Thus every physical machine is not a Turing Machine. You might as well argue that reality is based on physics, and physics is based on math, so nothing can be patented. But reality, and especially law, works differently than that. The fact remains that algorithms under certain conditions can be patented, precisely because it is engineering, and because some algorithms require massive investment to develop, and it's worthwhile to inspire companies to invest on the R&D. >> And eventually the patents expire, and the world gets these codecs free to use. > Even after patents expire, copyright expires in 90 years. I didn't say the sourcecode was suddenly free to use. I said the codec, as in the algorithm (which is what can be patented - code cannot), is free once the patent expires. Conflating the two is not useles s -they're orthogonal. I can write code for a non-patented algorithm, and you cannot just take it because that code is automatically copyrighted. But we were discussing patents. >Show me the numbers.... You keep confusing codec to mean a particular implementation of a codec. It does not. H.265 is a codec. x265 is an implementation of the codec. MP3 is a a codec. LAME is an implementation. Codecs can be patented, but not copyrighted. Implementations can be copyrighted, but not patented, but they can use patented ideas. So yes, commercial codecs generally are better than open source. H.264, H.265 were/are both better than any codec released around the same time. MP3 was the same. JPEG was the same. So you're agreeing with me - H265 is the best codec. >Show me the numbers. Here you are: http://compression.ru/ http://compression.ru/