The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated • Hacker News Board

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#281

Post by quadrangle » Wed, May 03, 2017, 4:56 AM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #231

quadrangle wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the fundamental concept of software patents is bad, not only in principle but in practice, there's burden on anyone suggesting the good/bad question to validate that it's even a legitimate question. It's like the creationism/evolution "debate". I can simply say that there's no validity at all to the creationism arguments without providing any argument at all. Similar to the idea that I don't need to provid…

If your premise is that "patents are not good" then why even ask the question about software patents? It's rather disingenuous, the assumption with the structure of your question is "within the framework of 'patents can be good'".

Well, I indeed do not believe that patents are actually good, but there's far more merit to the unconvincing arguments that patents can be good than to any arguments that software patents can be good. There are good reasons that many people (particularly among those who understand software) fundamentally oppose the entire concept of software patents without opposing all patents.

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#282

Post by xroche » Wed, May 03, 2017, 5:26 AM UTC

Nomentatus wrote: post #273

xroche wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So you don't believe in software patents ? There are two fundamental discussion schemes about software patents: (1) can we patent something that can be described as a mathematical concept and stuff. and (2) why would you want to patent software in the first place. The first discussion is tricky. Comparing algorithms to mathematics, having patents that can be expressed through mechanical OR software, etc. The second…

The big original reason patents came into existence was to reduce the number of trade secrets - an obvious block to progress; by ensuring that more inventions would enter the public domain (which was once rare and much tech was lost as a result, or very local.) See the history of forceps. Secondarily, as with copyright, you are rewarding the task of creativity. So, can you extend this first principle to software? Onl…

> will mean that everyone gets to use the newest and greatest algorithms

There are no such newest and greatest algorithms that are private and covered by patents. This is an illusion.

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#283

Post by hackinthebochs » Wed, May 03, 2017, 6:08 AM UTC

bogositosius wrote: post #279

hackinthebochs wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

RSA is the usual example. Do you disagree with it?

Yes, I disagree. Why does/did RSA require a patent?

Require is the wrong word. The question is were we better off with or without them having a patent. Not keeping RSA a trade secret seems like a win for society.

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#284

Post by hackinthebochs » Wed, May 03, 2017, 6:09 AM UTC

bogositosius wrote: post #280

hackinthebochs wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear, I didn't say that's what patents are for (i.e. their purpose), but what they correct for, i.e. what they do in practice. But I don't see that the two descriptions are different in practice. Patents incentivize publicly releasing an invention instead of keeping it a trade secret (or letting it languish). The problem this is solving is that ideas aren't valued by the market, only products. But society bene…

Patents don't purport to offer protection for ideas.

Was something unclear about this sentence?

>To be clear, I didn't say that's what patents are for (i.e. their purpose), but what they correct for, i.e. what they do in practice.

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#285

Post by bogositosius » Wed, May 03, 2017, 6:42 AM UTC

hackinthebochs wrote: post #283

bogositosius wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I disagree. Why does/did RSA require a patent?

Require is the wrong word. The question is were we better off with or without them having a patent. Not keeping RSA a trade secret seems like a win for society.

That presupposes a lot. Who says it would have been kept a "trade secret"? And, supposing it would have been, who's to say someone else wouldn't have come along with an alternative open solution?

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#286

Post by cookiecaper » Wed, May 03, 2017, 5:48 PM UTC

iplaw wrote: post #255

cookiecaper wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is a major issue in copyright law. In practice, there is no distinction between the patent-eligible invention (the machine) and the copyright-eligible "creative work" (the manual, or the code, in this case). That means that copyrights can be exerted in very menacing ways, like requiring users to bypass a copy protection mechanism in order to do required maintenance, as John Deere has done. That enables John…

Saying that there is no distinction isn't correct. The scope of a patent is much broader than a single coded implementation. The copyright doesn't protect the functional aspects of the code, it only protects it as a written work. However, companies have managed to twist the concept of infringement via reproduction, and bypassing of copy protection. Accessing a copy of code stored in memory is now considered creation…

Yeah, I agree. That's what I'm getting at; in the physical world, there is a bright line between "an invention" and "a copy". You buy a reproduction of an invention, or a physical reproduction of a copyrighted work, and that reproduction is a discrete unit owned by the purchaser and not really subject to the limitations of IP (only insofar as the fundamental components are directly copied to deprive the inventor/author of the proceeds).

In cyberspace, many things that should be considered "inventions" for IP purposes, and thus subject to the much more limited extent of patent protection and for which each individual unit is an unprotected entity, are instead considered "new copies" of a copyrighted work, under which substantially more aggressive licensing restrictions are typical, and under which the definition of things like "infringement" and "derivative" are much more restrictive.

A software program should be an invention under patent law, and its copies should be considered discrete physical units. The code itself may be copyrighted, just as the plans for an invention may be, but the produced binaries probably should not be. Rather, they are units of the invention regulated as normal goods.

This has become even harder as we have gone to mostly-digital software distribution. You used to be able to easily resell software if you had a CD. Now you can't even do that (which, by the way, is no small motive for the companies; it completely obliterates the secondary market for software).

IANAL

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#287

Post by Nomentatus » Wed, May 03, 2017, 11:59 PM UTC

xroche wrote: post #282

Nomentatus wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The big original reason patents came into existence was to reduce the number of trade secrets - an obvious block to progress; by ensuring that more inventions would enter the public domain (which was once rare and much tech was lost as a result, or very local.) See the history of forceps. Secondarily, as with copyright, you are rewarding the task of creativity. So, can you extend this first principle to software? Onl…

> will mean that everyone gets to use the newest and greatest algorithms There are no such newest and greatest algorithms that are private and covered by patents. This is an illusion.

It's not just a matter of encryption or compression; there are always better and worse ways of doing things. We have seen large advances in the past there and elsewhere, you're predicting progress won't happen again - a bad bet.

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#288

Post by pdimitar » Thu, May 04, 2017, 12:52 AM UTC

Arizhel wrote: post #138

throwaway91111 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you "support a format"? AFAIK nothing will convince Apple to release music in a better (patent-free) codec, much less convince others to dump DRM.

>How do you "support a format"? AFAIK nothing will convince Apple to release music in a better (patent-free) codec, Simple: don't give any money to Apple for music in patented or DRMed formats, or to anyone else who tries to sell music that way. If you really want, you can write them to tell them why you're not buying their crap. Companies get away with this behavior because consumers let them, and reward them with t…

That's exactly what I do: I buy the physical media and since this doesn't limit my rights in how do I store the music contained inside, I just rip it off that physical media and keep it safely on my machine. That way I also give all the corporations the finger and I am hopeful that even if several tens of thousands of other people do the same, they'll notice a lack of growth at least and reconsider.

I don't seriously believe the corps would actually change their ways to benefit the customer -- but this is my rebellion against their business model and it's an exercise of the small power I have.

Plus I don't break the law. I simply actively don't feed them money in their scheme which I feel are very unethical and greedy.

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#289

Post by PhasmaFelis » Thu, May 04, 2017, 1:54 AM UTC

quadrangle wrote: post #178

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm down on software patents too, but I'm not sure that's supportable without at least some sort of argument.

Given that the fundamental concept of software patents is bad, not only in principle but in practice, there's burden on anyone suggesting the good/bad question to validate that it's even a legitimate question. It's like the creationism/evolution "debate". I can simply say that there's no validity at all to the creationism arguments without providing any argument at all. Similar to the idea that I don't need to provid…

"I'm obviously right, so there" is not an argument. If you want to convince a poor foolish Philistine like myself, you need to actually discuss your evidence and conclusions.

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#290

Post by adiabatty » Fri, May 05, 2017, 9:08 AM UTC

voltagex_ wrote: post #125

TD-Linux wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If buying from iTunes, you can choose ALAC, which is royalty free. Patent-encumbered audio codecs are popular at this point because of network effects, not technical superiority. There are many ways to reduce the network effect, even without changing music buying habits. For example If you're a website designer, include a royalty-free audio format as one of your srcs. As a bonus, you'll save some bandwidth.

How do I "choose" ALAC? I thought only select albums were available losslessly. Support Bandcamp. Support Databeats (storefront for many drum 'n' bass labels). Hell, support Beatport and Juno, even though they insist on huge markups for WAV/FLAC.

The same way I do (and you do): get both ALAC and FLAC downloads from Bandcamp. ALAC for now, FLAC if you want to play your music on systems that won't run iTunes.