3 ms·

It's unfortunate that the patent language is mired in obtuse legalese rather than understandability by actual programmers. For example, take a Shazam-like song

It's unfortunate that the patent language is mired in obtuse legalese rather than understandability by actual programmers. For example, take a Shazam-like song id algorithm. Technical blog post explaining the technology: http://laplacian.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/how-shazam-works/ http://laplacian.wordpress.com/2009/01/10/how-shazam-works/ Patent covering such an algo(is it the same? I can't even tell!): http://www.google.com/patents/US6941275?dq=.+6,941,275 http://www.google.com/patents/US6941275?dq=.+6,941,275 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_patent_law The word patent even means 'in the open'. When was the last time someone linked to a software patent to share knowledge or enlightenment?

icegreentea 12y ago
That's because the patent you linked isn't for a detection algorithm, it's for Shazam's entire business model - namely, a way for a customer to on the fly transmit a segment of recorded music, have the music identified (the claims are agnostic to the method of detection), have the identified match fedback to the user, and also providing a method for the user to also purchase the identified track. I mean, this is actually a bad patent to pick on, because in the scheme of things, it's actually really clear. Just read the claims. If you want to look at what an algorithmic patent looks like, take a look at http://www.audiblemagic.com/pdf/US5918223.pdf http://www.audiblemagic.com/pdf/US5918223.pdf this is a Patent cited by the Shazam patent as an example of a music matching algorithm. The bulk of the patent is basically a mix of block diagrams, pseudo-code, and background into the art. It's certainly not phrased like normal papers, but it's hardly 'mired'. It gets trickier when you get to the claims (which is actually the only parts that are binding), but if you read and understood the preferred embodiment (which I believe any reasonable literate and patient programmer can), it's nowhere as bad, as long as you understand that claims are nearly always structured from broadest to narrowest, with successive claims typically carving out specific 'implementations' of prior, broader claims.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

icegreentea 12y ago

That's because the patent you linked isn't for a detection algorithm, it's for Shazam's entire business model - namely, a way for a customer to on the fly transmit a segment of recorded music, have the music identified (the claims are agnostic to the method of detection), have the identified match fedback to the user, and also providing a method for the user to also purchase the identified track. I mean, this is actually a bad patent to pick on, because in the scheme of things, it's actually really clear. Just read the claims. If you want to look at what an algorithmic patent looks like, take a look at http://www.audiblemagic.com/pdf/US5918223.pdf http://www.audiblemagic.com/pdf/US5918223.pdf this is a Patent cited by the Shazam patent as an example of a music matching algorithm. The bulk of the patent is basically a mix of block diagrams, pseudo-code, and background into the art. It's certainly not phrased like normal papers, but it's hardly 'mired'. It gets trickier when you get to the claims (which is actually the only parts that are binding), but if you read and understood the preferred embodiment (which I believe any reasonable literate and patient programmer can), it's nowhere as bad, as long as you understand that claims are nearly always structured from broadest to narrowest, with successive claims typically carving out specific 'implementations' of prior, broader claims.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]