41–50 of 291 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you don't believe in software patents?
Software patents historically have been awarded for incredibly vague, "could-apply-to-nearly-anything" systems. As a result, there have been a lot of abuses of software patents by companies, both big and small.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you don't believe in software patents?
All software can be reduced to mathematical formulae, which cannot be patented, so no. There should be no such thing as a software patent.
However, any physical machine or process can be reduced to the laws of physics, and you can't patent the laws of physics as far as I know. I don't think "reduced to mathematical formulae" is in itself a great argument.
Should the jacquard loom have been granted a patent?
So, now that the "but MP3 is patent-encumbered" consideration is finally dead-ish, what's the new balance on the debate between shipping {MP3, MP4-AAC, MKV-Vorbis, MKV-Opus} as music/SFX assets in software products? Also, with the two sub-considerations: • on mobile, where hardware decoding exists for only some codecs; • on the web, where the audio APIs only accept some of these formats/codecs.
For new products there isn't really any room for debate anymore, Opus is the clear winner.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you don't believe in software patents?
All software can be reduced to mathematical formulae, which cannot be patented, so no. There should be no such thing as a software patent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you don't believe in software patents?
Software is already covered by copyright. Granting it parent protection as well allows software companies to double dip in a way that no other industry can.
This parallels software coverage. You can protect the process (the executed code resulting in affirmative steps) and the manual (the source code).
=================================
EDIT: I must be flagged, because I can't post anymore. SO if you make a post that people disagree with, you get your posting privileges revoked?
=================================
It's close enough. The main point is, patents have been accepted as a necessary part of the investment, development, and recoupment process. A patent, directed to machinery or software, with generalized language may implicitly cover thousands of different ways to perform a given process.
Look, I deal with IP day in, day out. I'm glad that it exists because I've made a career out of it. That said, I don't agree with the status quo when it comes to the patentability of computer implemented methods. Some stuff that comes across my table is clearly novel. Some stuff was issued in the late 1990s and appears to be painfully broad and woefully invalid.
Software copyright infringement is a red herring, unless you are dealing with piracy, theft, etc.
So, now that the "but MP3 is patent-encumbered" consideration is finally dead-ish, what's the new balance on the debate between shipping {MP3, MP4-AAC, MKV-Vorbis, MKV-Opus} as music/SFX assets in software products? Also, with the two sub-considerations: • on mobile, where hardware decoding exists for only some codecs; • on the web, where the audio APIs only accept some of these formats/codecs.
MP3 is the worst performer of the lot, but is suddenly more attractive because it's free and AAC is decidedly not. If you don't need compatibility (like for bgm/sfx) it's still a worse choice than Vorbis or Opus because it compresses worse. For sfx and looping music in particular, mp3 is also a mess because there's no standard way to play back samples with zero delay and zero extra samples at the end.
Mp3 is, for all intents and purposes, the animated gif of audio.
Recognizing this adds legitimacy to software patents. Don't. There have been free and open source MP3 decoders for many years now.
So you don't believe in software patents?
So, now that the "but MP3 is patent-encumbered" consideration is finally dead-ish, what's the new balance on the debate between shipping {MP3, MP4-AAC, MKV-Vorbis, MKV-Opus} as music/SFX assets in software products? Also, with the two sub-considerations: • on mobile, where hardware decoding exists for only some codecs; • on the web, where the audio APIs only accept some of these formats/codecs.
MP3 is the worst performer of the lot, but is suddenly more attractive because it's free and AAC is decidedly not. If you don't need compatibility (like for bgm/sfx) it's still a worse choice than Vorbis or Opus because it compresses worse. For sfx and looping music in particular, mp3 is also a mess because there's no standard way to play back samples with zero delay and zero extra samples at the end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Software patents are bullshit. A patent on an invention that many people would easily develop independently of one another should not, it is argued, be granted since this impedes development. [1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#Obviousness
There's nothing unique about software that makes it more likely to be developed independently by many inventors, the same happens often with hardware patents. And the same argument applies - the patent system as a whole impedes progress as much (or more?) than it advances it.