3 ms·

I have no personal opinion. If you want the opinion of the examiner, you can go here: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/16456602/ifw/docs?application

I have no personal opinion. If you want the opinion of the examiner, you can go here: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/16456602/ifw/docs?application= https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/applications/16456602/ifw/doc... Look for "Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (PTOL-85)" and click on "PDF" on the right. Scroll to page 10 and look for the "Reasons for Allowance" section where the examiner describes in detail why it differs from the prior art.

amiga386 2y ago
I was more looking for your opinion on the patent in general. While there are minor technical differences in exactly how rANS has been encoded/decoded before, and how Microsoft does it, the fact that Microsoft was granted this means they now have a weapon with which they can cause fear, uncertainty and doubt around ANS, much to the chagrin of the ANS's actual inventor, Jarek Duda, who wanted it to be public domain and implementable by anyone. I'm not an expert but Duda and fellow compression experts looked at the claims themselves: https://encode.su/threads/2648-Published-rANS-patent-by-Storeleap/page5 https://encode.su/threads/2648-Published-rANS-patent-by-Stor... It seems to me like Microsoft got a patent on "doing ANS a little bit different" - they didn't have to, they could just do it the normal way, but this little bit of difference lets them secure a patent, and now they can pursue anyone who implements ANS to intimidate them with "how sure are you don't do ANS like we do? Let's get our multi-billion legal team, and your legal team, and find out. You have a legal team, don't you?" In particular, this patent already had a final rejection in 2020. But Microsoft then took advantage of the "After Final Consideration Pilot" program, which sounds more like the USPTO trying to drum up trade, to get it re-re-re-examined.
- btrettel 2y ago
  > Microsoft was granted this means they now have a weapon with which they can cause fear, uncertainty and doubt around ANS This is due more to people not understanding what the patent covers. The right response in my view is to educate people. Just because someone has a patent on a particular variation of X, doesn't mean that working on X is risky or what not. Just don't infringe their variation. When I was at the USPTO, I examined a lot of little variations of common things in my area (water heaters and car air vents, mostly) and I never worried that it would stop innovation as usually the point of novelty was not particularly groundbreaking, or even necessarily of interest to anyone aside from the applicant.
  - the_gorilla 2y ago
    I'm wonder now if people working in patent offices actually think they're doing something good and are just overworked, while being completely unaware of the evil they're supporting. It sure sounds like you think there's value in it.
    - throwaway48476 2y ago
      The patent office can be sued for not granting but not for granting. So they bias towards granting things they shouldn't and let the courts deal with the mess later.
      - 20after4 2y ago
        Wow that actually explains a lot. TIL.
  - antonvs 2y ago
    > my area (water heaters and car air vents, mostly) Do you feel qualified to discuss patents related to software? If so, why?

amiga386 2y ago

I was more looking for your opinion on the patent in general. While there are minor technical differences in exactly how rANS has been encoded/decoded before, and how Microsoft does it, the fact that Microsoft was granted this means they now have a weapon with which they can cause fear, uncertainty and doubt around ANS, much to the chagrin of the ANS's actual inventor, Jarek Duda, who wanted it to be public domain and implementable by anyone. I'm not an expert but Duda and fellow compression experts looked at the claims themselves: https://encode.su/threads/2648-Published-rANS-patent-by-Storeleap/page5 https://encode.su/threads/2648-Published-rANS-patent-by-Stor... It seems to me like Microsoft got a patent on "doing ANS a little bit different" - they didn't have to, they could just do it the normal way, but this little bit of difference lets them secure a patent, and now they can pursue anyone who implements ANS to intimidate them with "how sure are you don't do ANS like we do? Let's get our multi-billion legal team, and your legal team, and find out. You have a legal team, don't you?" In particular, this patent already had a final rejection in 2020. But Microsoft then took advantage of the "After Final Consideration Pilot" program, which sounds more like the USPTO trying to drum up trade, to get it re-re-re-examined.

btrettel 2y ago
> Microsoft was granted this means they now have a weapon with which they can cause fear, uncertainty and doubt around ANS This is due more to people not understanding what the patent covers. The right response in my view is to educate people. Just because someone has a patent on a particular variation of X, doesn't mean that working on X is risky or what not. Just don't infringe their variation. When I was at the USPTO, I examined a lot of little variations of common things in my area (water heaters and car air vents, mostly) and I never worried that it would stop innovation as usually the point of novelty was not particularly groundbreaking, or even necessarily of interest to anyone aside from the applicant.
- the_gorilla 2y ago
  I'm wonder now if people working in patent offices actually think they're doing something good and are just overworked, while being completely unaware of the evil they're supporting. It sure sounds like you think there's value in it.
  - throwaway48476 2y ago
    The patent office can be sued for not granting but not for granting. So they bias towards granting things they shouldn't and let the courts deal with the mess later.
    - 20after4 2y ago
      Wow that actually explains a lot. TIL.
- antonvs 2y ago
  > my area (water heaters and car air vents, mostly) Do you feel qualified to discuss patents related to software? If so, why?