4 ms·

I'll play: US20080002776. [http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%22

I'll play: US20080002776. [http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220080002776%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20080002776&RS=DN/20080002776 http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Se...] Although I no longer work for the BBC and have already received my bonuses for the filing and granting (after I left the BBC) of this patent I have a personal curiosity as the core inventive step was (I believe) mine although it was greatly extended and improved by others with greater domain knowledge in MPEG encoding. As far as I know it was a novel idea and wasn't obvious in advance to experienced video encoding engineers. The original idea was to treat encoding losses as errors/defects that can be fixed or patched by additional data distributed separately. This was extended to arbitrary enhancements and changes and potential implementations, consequences and techniques. I believe that there was a real non-obvious inventive step in considering encoder losses as patchable bugs. Given that idea alone a (suboptimal) implementation is relatively easy to create but was not obvious if the task being discussed is using the early 2000's Internet to deliver better video quality than broadcast (SD) TV could. I am not aware of any current usage of the ideas in this patent or what licenses the BBC may or may not have granted. Edit: Time for me to sleep now, will check for any replies tomorrow.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago
At a glance that sounds like the "supplemental enhancement information" that H.263 had circa 2000, but the patent appears to have been filed in 2004 and issued in 2008. Am I wrong?
- josephlord 14y ago
  It is similar but not the same (I believe - I am not familiar with H.263). The patent itself describes the difference between this idea and other Multi stream encodings. This idea can be applied to MPEG2 or any lossy codec and it also covers sending the enhancement data at different times and by different routes to the main data unlike other multistream/pyramid encoding approaches which expect simultaneous generation and transmission of the streams.
te_platt 14y ago
Interesting. I think my only issue would be with the clarity of the patent. I admit to not being skilled in the art of broadcast video but not completely ignorant of video compression ideas either. Still, the "legalized" writing style makes for very difficult reading. Did you have a working version before applying for the patent?
- josephlord 14y ago
  We didn't build a functioning sample but I'm not sure what the point would be. The implementation you would build for a real deployment would depend massively on the constraints of the system you were working in (what enhancement, existing encoding, receiver hardware capability - decoders, storage, mixing, bandwidth and latency of supplementary channel).
scoot 14y ago
This is where the patent process really falls down - subjectivity. You consider the idea of treating compression loss as an error to be patched as non-obvious, whereas to most on HN (being generally technical, even if not in this field), that's probably, a "yeah, duh, and?" suggestion. The implementation of that idea, and the techniques and technologies involved may ultimately be novel, non obvious and patentable, but your argument boils down to suggesting that "if it's broke, fix it" (in any particular subject domain) is sufficient to warrant a patent, so doesn't meet the criteria requested. I think to be objective in answering the GP post you should probably suggest a patent that isn't your own.
- josephlord 14y ago
  Your point is a fair one and what is an obvious answer depends greatly on what question is asked and also to a degree on timing. For me the key was recognising that: 1) The lossy encoding could be regarded as bugs. 2) the losses are known by the broadcaster and preserved (without further loss in a digital transmission system) to the viewers home. Once the nature of the problem is described this way the idea does seem obvious (at least to me with a largely Computer Science rather than video encoding background) but that is not how issues are initially presented and redefining the problem is a great deal of the inventive part. I would still defend this patent's inventiveness but I fully agree that obviousness is quite subjective
  - scromar 14y ago
    Also, a lot of times it is difficult to avoid hindsight bias. It may arguably seem obvious now, in 2013, but it is hard to say what would have been obvious in 2004. Nonobviousness is judged as of the filing date, a fact that many seem to forget.
    - scoot 14y ago
      That's a fair point, and hindsight bias can play a part in downplaying even recent innovations, which may seem obvious only after the fact. I don't think that applies in this case, but setting that aside, my main argument (that what counts as innovative, non-obvious etc. is subjective), I think still stands.
ZeroGravitas 14y ago
Why is my licence fee (basically a very regressive tax) being used to apply for further government-granted monopolies that can only be used to tax (or worse prevent) other corporations from delivering video services? What benefit is this providing the people of the UK?
- josephlord 14y ago
  Well I'm not sure the argument is any different than for the entirety of BBC Worldwide. Generated revenues from licensing and cost savings from cross licensing can make the license fee go further. Pursuing patents isn't cheap especially when it is done in US and Europe as in this case so I expect someone foresaw the possibility of some return from this. There was some belief also that patents or at least applications were the formal way to get prior art into the record so that the ideas would not be patented by others in the future preventing the BBC from using them. I know that legally any publication becomes part of the prior art record but at the time of application for a patent it is principally the patent databases that are searched so there is some truth to the point that a patent is the best prior art.

AnthonyMouse 14y ago

At a glance that sounds like the "supplemental enhancement information" that H.263 had circa 2000, but the patent appears to have been filed in 2004 and issued in 2008. Am I wrong?

josephlord 14y ago
It is similar but not the same (I believe - I am not familiar with H.263). The patent itself describes the difference between this idea and other Multi stream encodings. This idea can be applied to MPEG2 or any lossy codec and it also covers sending the enhancement data at different times and by different routes to the main data unlike other multistream/pyramid encoding approaches which expect simultaneous generation and transmission of the streams.

te_platt 14y ago

Interesting. I think my only issue would be with the clarity of the patent. I admit to not being skilled in the art of broadcast video but not completely ignorant of video compression ideas either. Still, the "legalized" writing style makes for very difficult reading. Did you have a working version before applying for the patent?

josephlord 14y ago
We didn't build a functioning sample but I'm not sure what the point would be. The implementation you would build for a real deployment would depend massively on the constraints of the system you were working in (what enhancement, existing encoding, receiver hardware capability - decoders, storage, mixing, bandwidth and latency of supplementary channel).

scoot 14y ago

This is where the patent process really falls down - subjectivity. You consider the idea of treating compression loss as an error to be patched as non-obvious, whereas to most on HN (being generally technical, even if not in this field), that's probably, a "yeah, duh, and?" suggestion. The implementation of that idea, and the techniques and technologies involved may ultimately be novel, non obvious and patentable, but your argument boils down to suggesting that "if it's broke, fix it" (in any particular subject domain) is sufficient to warrant a patent, so doesn't meet the criteria requested. I think to be objective in answering the GP post you should probably suggest a patent that isn't your own.

josephlord 14y ago
Your point is a fair one and what is an obvious answer depends greatly on what question is asked and also to a degree on timing. For me the key was recognising that: 1) The lossy encoding could be regarded as bugs. 2) the losses are known by the broadcaster and preserved (without further loss in a digital transmission system) to the viewers home. Once the nature of the problem is described this way the idea does seem obvious (at least to me with a largely Computer Science rather than video encoding background) but that is not how issues are initially presented and redefining the problem is a great deal of the inventive part. I would still defend this patent's inventiveness but I fully agree that obviousness is quite subjective
- scromar 14y ago
  Also, a lot of times it is difficult to avoid hindsight bias. It may arguably seem obvious now, in 2013, but it is hard to say what would have been obvious in 2004. Nonobviousness is judged as of the filing date, a fact that many seem to forget.
  - scoot 14y ago
    That's a fair point, and hindsight bias can play a part in downplaying even recent innovations, which may seem obvious only after the fact. I don't think that applies in this case, but setting that aside, my main argument (that what counts as innovative, non-obvious etc. is subjective), I think still stands.

ZeroGravitas 14y ago

Why is my licence fee (basically a very regressive tax) being used to apply for further government-granted monopolies that can only be used to tax (or worse prevent) other corporations from delivering video services? What benefit is this providing the people of the UK?

josephlord 14y ago
Well I'm not sure the argument is any different than for the entirety of BBC Worldwide. Generated revenues from licensing and cost savings from cross licensing can make the license fee go further. Pursuing patents isn't cheap especially when it is done in US and Europe as in this case so I expect someone foresaw the possibility of some return from this. There was some belief also that patents or at least applications were the formal way to get prior art into the record so that the ideas would not be patented by others in the future preventing the BBC from using them. I know that legally any publication becomes part of the prior art record but at the time of application for a patent it is principally the patent databases that are searched so there is some truth to the point that a patent is the best prior art.