Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

mpegla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 180 posts

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#61

Post by [deleted] »

zanny wrote: post #36
digi_owl wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And likely never will be. Newer codecs basically exist because video resolutions outpace storage space (for questionable benefits). MPEG2, much like MP3, are "good enough" for most common usage.

A megabyte saved is still a megabyte saved. An mp3 sourced from a FLAC at 320kbps is ususally indistinguishable from 128kbps Opus to me, but I can often tell the difference between that and a 128kbps mp3. I encode all my music in 128kbps Opus on my storage constrained devices for that reason.

[deleted]

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#62

Post by amyjess »

For those wondering about MPEG-2's applications (compared to, e.g., MPEG-1 and MPEG-4), it's the primary standard used for DVD-Video. Blu-ray makes some use of MPEG-2, especially for the FBI warnings, but it's not too popular for the actual features. It's also used in ATSC and DVB broadcast video, but I'm not sure how popular it is compared to MPEG-4.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#63

Post by wtetzner »

notyourwork wrote: post #59
zanny wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the sweet taste of abusing state institutions to hold back scientific progress. First it was efficient video and audio compression, now it will be life saving treatment. Ain't the world such a better place for MPEG-LA existing... (that being said, if MPEG-LA wasn't around, someone else would have formed just as evil a patent tyrant company to act as the arm of big media). MPEG-LA is just a symptom of broken I…

Without disagreeing I would encourage you to provide an alternative solution to the current (as you describe) broken system. The system was put in place to protect us, if it isn't serving its purpose we need to be more objective and declare how it could be better implemented.

Just to be clear, it wasn't put in place to protect us, it was put in place to encourage innovation.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#64

Post by jcranmer »

TheDong wrote: post #50
shawnz wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> patents are not intended for [...] business processes Says who? > that's essentially all software really is The implementation of MPEG2 is "business logic"? I wouldn't call it that.

The software implementation of mpeg2 is covered under copyright. The math/algorithms/whatever are covered by patents. I could write a totally distinct implementation of mpeg2 called "myvideoencoder" which used the same math, and the patent would make that a violation of their rights. Math isn't patentable per numerous rulings in the past, but somehow once a computer is doing math really fast it becomes patentable.

What's being patented isn't the math, it's the implementation of that math.

As a counterpoint that argues why software patents should exist, I'll point out this. If you build a mechanical feedback mechanism that acts as a controller for some chemical process, no one doubts that said controller meets the patentability criteria. So why should we penalize inventors for emulating that controller in software instead of doing it in hardware? (Note: this scenario is effectively the one that established the patentability of software).

The real problem is that the bar for novelty and obviousness in software ought to be much, much higher, and software, having shorter development cadence, needs shorter patent protection times. The most useful change to patent law would be to have patent times adjust to reflect typical development cadences, as opposed to being fixed across all fields.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#65

Post by ethbro »

wtetzner wrote: post #63
notyourwork wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without disagreeing I would encourage you to provide an alternative solution to the current (as you describe) broken system. The system was put in place to protect us, if it isn't serving its purpose we need to be more objective and declare how it could be better implemented.

Just to be clear, it wasn't put in place to protect us, it was put in place to encourage innovation.

Quibbles aside, that's essentially analogous to "protecting the public good" (aka us).

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#66

Post by gleenn »

notyourwork wrote: post #59
zanny wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the sweet taste of abusing state institutions to hold back scientific progress. First it was efficient video and audio compression, now it will be life saving treatment. Ain't the world such a better place for MPEG-LA existing... (that being said, if MPEG-LA wasn't around, someone else would have formed just as evil a patent tyrant company to act as the arm of big media). MPEG-LA is just a symptom of broken I…

Without disagreeing I would encourage you to provide an alternative solution to the current (as you describe) broken system. The system was put in place to protect us, if it isn't serving its purpose we need to be more objective and declare how it could be better implemented.

Wouldn't a clause being added that required some form of obvious progress that your company plans to directly use the IP they are holding or lose it to the public be sufficient to prevent companies like MPEG LA from just using it to sue others? These things were meant to protect innovation, so require copyright/patent holders to be innovating or lose it so someone else can. I know "innovation" is vague but as someone else just noted on HN recently, the legal system is good at making rules even on abstract concepts.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#67

Post by kelnos »

shawnz wrote: post #31
whatshisface wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Patents were designed so that companies would contribute to public knowledge instead of keeping everything as a trade secret. The idea was that they would be afforded increased security for a few years, in exchange for the idea becoming public afterwards. The time range was set to be practical for the industry. The problem is, over the past few years software has been moving way too fast for the standard patent timef…

> The problem is, over the past few years software has been moving way too fast for the standard patent timeframe. Two thoughts: - Why does this mean that they should be eliminated entirely? Why not revise the timeframe? - Isn't this argument applicable to almost all modern patents, whether software, technological, or otherwise?

Not the parent poster, but personally I just don't see the value (to the public) with this model.

Most A/V codec development these days is done at least somewhat out in the open, and there are collaborators between different organizations. The nature of the beast is that you can't release codecs to the public without inherently giving away how it works. Even if you lock things down with NDAs and such, people will reverse-engineer it before too long.

That alone isn't an indictment of patents here (note that drug development suffers from similar issues, at least wrt disclosure), but:

This sort of work will happen regardless of whether or not there are patents covering them (the fact that we have/had things like Vorbis, FLAC, VP8/9, Tarkin, Theora, AV1, etc. is proof of that), so in the end patenting these sorts of things doesn't actually "promote the progress of science and useful arts"; it just encourages rent-seeking behavior. Patent-encumbered codecs out there are not meaningfully better performance-wise than the patent-unencumbered ones (certainly not enough to justify the licensing fees); the patent-encumbered ones are merely better at marketing, so everyone who wants to do anything with video ends up paying a tax for no real benefit.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#68

Post by kelnos »

xenadu02 wrote: post #58
shawnz wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is, over the past few years software has been moving way too fast for the standard patent timeframe. Two thoughts: - Why does this mean that they should be eliminated entirely? Why not revise the timeframe? - Isn't this argument applicable to almost all modern patents, whether software, technological, or otherwise?

I favor the elimination of software patents but if we must have them then things like MPEG are one of the few examples of software that probably should qualify for patent protection. The idea that no one would research new video codecs without patent protection is laughable - OS vendors, network operators, et al are highly motivated to do so regardless of patents. Unfortunately making software non-patentable isn't li…

This all just sounds too complicated. Why not just require that any technology developed for an industry standard, ratified by an international standards body, be given away, with patent rights disclaimed? I honestly don't see why we should allow people to make money off of foundational things like this. It creates perverse incentives.

As you point out, the lack of patent revenue here isn't going to hurt innovation; I agree that it's laughable that the lack of patent protection would stop or even slow down research here.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#69

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

notyourwork wrote: post #59
zanny wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah yes, the sweet taste of abusing state institutions to hold back scientific progress. First it was efficient video and audio compression, now it will be life saving treatment. Ain't the world such a better place for MPEG-LA existing... (that being said, if MPEG-LA wasn't around, someone else would have formed just as evil a patent tyrant company to act as the arm of big media). MPEG-LA is just a symptom of broken I…

Without disagreeing I would encourage you to provide an alternative solution to the current (as you describe) broken system. The system was put in place to protect us, if it isn't serving its purpose we need to be more objective and declare how it could be better implemented.

Certain subjects should not be patentable. Let me put it this way: the existince of a CRISPR patent will literally kill people. Medical research should be funded by the government and the results should be in the public domain.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#70

Post by kelnos »

jcranmer wrote: post #64
TheDong wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The software implementation of mpeg2 is covered under copyright. The math/algorithms/whatever are covered by patents. I could write a totally distinct implementation of mpeg2 called "myvideoencoder" which used the same math, and the patent would make that a violation of their rights. Math isn't patentable per numerous rulings in the past, but somehow once a computer is doing math really fast it becomes patentable.

What's being patented isn't the math, it's the implementation of that math. As a counterpoint that argues why software patents should exist, I'll point out this. If you build a mechanical feedback mechanism that acts as a controller for some chemical process, no one doubts that said controller meets the patentability criteria. So why should we penalize inventors for emulating that controller in software instead of do…

I think the backlash against existing software patents and how they're used is why people take such a hard line against software patents.

I don't have anything against software patents per se, and your example, I think, is a good one, but 20 years in a field moving as fast as software is ridiculous (I'd push for 5 years at most), and the ability to be issued a patent on trivial bullshit is insane.

Post reply on HN