5 ms·

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,

by 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.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
rayiner 14y ago
Did you read the patent?
ScottBurson 14y ago
I agree -- the subjective judgment of obviousness is a huge problem, particularly in software patents. I think the law should be changed to require objective evidence of nonobviousness. What would that mean in a case like this? Let's suppose, as appears to be the case, that the patent has not proven to be of either commercial or intellectual value. Commercial value would be demonstrated by someone using the patented method to gain a key advantage over a competitor. Intellectual value would be demonstrated by a peer-reviewed conference or journal paper. If the BBC were to sue someone for infringement, the question would become: how important is the patented method to the defendant's business? If it's central, the BBC might have a case, but if it just slightly improves the user experience without conferring a significant competitive advantage, the suit could not move forward. The point I'm trying to get at is this: if the idea does not prove to be of much commercial value, then there was never much incentive for someone to come up with it in the first place. Therefore the (apparent) absence of prior art provides no evidence that the idea is not obvious; and if there isn't any other such evidence either, then, under the change that I suggest, the patent could not be asserted. Under this regime, companies would still have to worry about patents on techniques central to their business models, but could be much less concerned about incidental infringement, especially that occasioned by independent reinvention.
waveman2 14y ago
> 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. I actually implemented this idea in some of my own software, was unaware that it had been patented in some context, and did not consider it particularly remarkable. I remember thinking "that's kind of neat", the way you do a few times a day when writing software.
- josephlord 14y ago
  'that's kind of neat' is exactly the feeling of an inventive step in my view when it is a new way of doing things. I do get some of that feeling when programming but that is usually discovering and picking tools put there by the language designers and I wouldn't expect to patent them. This patent is inherently limited in the amount a license would be worth as it is possible to work around it by sending the full enhanced stream by the other distribution method. In practice this simple way of doing things has proved practical in most cases as available bandwidths have increased. I also trust the BBC not to abusively troll small companies and startups. Unlike with trademarks you can ignore widespread infringement without losing your rights. The BBC (at the time, I don't know about now) was mostly interested in having a worthwhile patent portfolio for cross licensing mostly for defensive use. I am personally curious about where you used this although it is probably wiser not to tell me. It may be that some detail makes it non-infringing. It may also be that the BBC would offer a reasonable license although approaching them may be risky in itself. I don't know if a lawyer or other intermediary could negotiate without revealing who the negotiation is on behalf of until agreement is reached.

by scoot 14y ago

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.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

rayiner 14y ago

Did you read the patent?

ScottBurson 14y ago

I agree -- the subjective judgment of obviousness is a huge problem, particularly in software patents. I think the law should be changed to require objective evidence of nonobviousness. What would that mean in a case like this? Let's suppose, as appears to be the case, that the patent has not proven to be of either commercial or intellectual value. Commercial value would be demonstrated by someone using the patented method to gain a key advantage over a competitor. Intellectual value would be demonstrated by a peer-reviewed conference or journal paper. If the BBC were to sue someone for infringement, the question would become: how important is the patented method to the defendant's business? If it's central, the BBC might have a case, but if it just slightly improves the user experience without conferring a significant competitive advantage, the suit could not move forward. The point I'm trying to get at is this: if the idea does not prove to be of much commercial value, then there was never much incentive for someone to come up with it in the first place. Therefore the (apparent) absence of prior art provides no evidence that the idea is not obvious; and if there isn't any other such evidence either, then, under the change that I suggest, the patent could not be asserted. Under this regime, companies would still have to worry about patents on techniques central to their business models, but could be much less concerned about incidental infringement, especially that occasioned by independent reinvention.

waveman2 14y ago

> 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. I actually implemented this idea in some of my own software, was unaware that it had been patented in some context, and did not consider it particularly remarkable. I remember thinking "that's kind of neat", the way you do a few times a day when writing software.

josephlord 14y ago
'that's kind of neat' is exactly the feeling of an inventive step in my view when it is a new way of doing things. I do get some of that feeling when programming but that is usually discovering and picking tools put there by the language designers and I wouldn't expect to patent them. This patent is inherently limited in the amount a license would be worth as it is possible to work around it by sending the full enhanced stream by the other distribution method. In practice this simple way of doing things has proved practical in most cases as available bandwidths have increased. I also trust the BBC not to abusively troll small companies and startups. Unlike with trademarks you can ignore widespread infringement without losing your rights. The BBC (at the time, I don't know about now) was mostly interested in having a worthwhile patent portfolio for cross licensing mostly for defensive use. I am personally curious about where you used this although it is probably wiser not to tell me. It may be that some detail makes it non-infringing. It may also be that the BBC would offer a reasonable license although approaching them may be risky in itself. I don't know if a lawyer or other intermediary could negotiate without revealing who the negotiation is on behalf of until agreement is reached.