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

101–110 of 180 posts

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#101

Post by userbinator »

phkahler wrote: post #96
ythn wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't abolishing them create an out of control copycat shovelware economy worse than the app stores? I mean, if you can blatantly rip off other people's IP

The ripoffs would have to compete. Some would compete on price, which might benefit the public by making things more available. Others might compete on quality, which might benefit the public by having alternatives to the cheapest crap someone can produce. Neither of those things happen automatically with patents.

The ripoffs would have to compete.

...which of course means that they have to do something more than just copy IP --- in other words, make some sort of improvement. I'd argue that this sort of unrestricted sharing and competition will benefit the public more than the restricted form of competition that IP laws bring, because now everyone is free to remix and improve.

In fact, that sort of thing has been going on in China for a long time now:

https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=284

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#102

Post by userbinator »

davidp wrote: post #95
dragonwriter wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without copyright, you don't need a license for content to be Free. There may be another edge to the sword, but it ain't the one you are pointing at.

With the GPL at least, its major clauses are aimed at restricting software from being incorporated into closed systems. I don't know if eliminating that control was what the GP had in mind, but it would be one of the perhaps-unexpected effects. See also: Licenses that prohibit use for military purposes or other things the authors consider undesirable.

Without copyright there wouldn't really be "closed systems" any more --- sure, you might not have the original source, but it also becomes legal to decompile and publish the results --- and as the cracker/hacker/security community has shown, source isn't mandatory for doing interesting things with software.

If anything, the loss of copyright would cause a great advance in reverse-engineering technology --- and also attempts at defending from it. IMHO not such a bad thing after all.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#104

Post by SllX »

stickydink wrote: post #13
SllX wrote: post #3

An obsolete movie format, but a large amount of stored media exists in this format so ultimately a win. I would like to say something to the effect of there being just a tiny bit less rent-seeking in the world today, but I'm sure by tomorrow the seeds will be planted for millions more rent-seeking opportunities in the future.

DVDs are still created and purchased all over the world, I don't think it's quite obsolete yet?

So I probably should have put this in my original comment as I've gotten a few replies in the same vein. What I mean by MPEG-2 being obsolete is that whilst DVDs are still created and purchased all over the world, and DVDs do make use of MPEG-2, we have superior video compression formats available that are mostly, patent encumbered, but also technically superior to MPEG-2 in just about every way other than availability, and now, the lack of patent encumbrance (outside the Philippines and Malaysia at least).

Or put another way, it isn't yet commercially obsolete, but it is technically obsolete.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#105

Post by SllX »

anabis wrote: post #7
SllX wrote: post #3

An obsolete movie format, but a large amount of stored media exists in this format so ultimately a win. I would like to say something to the effect of there being just a tiny bit less rent-seeking in the world today, but I'm sure by tomorrow the seeds will be planted for millions more rent-seeking opportunities in the future.

Most digital TV broadcasts use MPEG-2, don't they?

I posted a longer reply to someone else, but to clarify, when I say obsolete, I mean technically obsolete rather than commercially obsolete.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#106

Post by sitkack »

ozmbie wrote: post #85
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.

Streaming 4K videos (or fitting them onto a 50GB physical disc) requires better video codecs. MPEG2 wouldn't be enough. Personally, I see the benefit in 4K having a setup to take advantage of it.

Most of MPEG2 was focused on interlaced formats. MPEG1 can already handle 4k by 4k video. MPEG1 and 2 can already handle HD on bluray media. Even at the max bitrate (100Mbps), a bluray can store 1.4Hrs of video.

One could definitely take parts of MPEG1 and MPEG2 to create a new good enough codec for many use cases.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#107

Post by dredmorbius »

davidp wrote: post #73
pitaj wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather the patent system be abolished than have the current patent system. Same applies to Copyright. The entire state of IP with the DMCA is just abysmal.

Copyright is the foundation of all FLOSS licenses, from GPL to MIT. You might know that already, but that's a sharp double-edged sword you're swinging.

Flipside: copyright is a human construct. So is the GPL and concept of copyleft. It is possible to eliminate one thing (say, overbearing copyright) and protect another. Rather than creating a class of works under license which cannot be constrained, it might be possible to create a set of works under law which may be designated with equivalent protections.

Or find other means to the same ends as the GPL: protecting the three freedoms laid out by RMS.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#108

Post by kanzure »

Solar19 wrote: post #84
topleveldomain wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for this response. How about requiring patent-holders to show progress on their invention every X years, so that inventors can't just sit on an old and important patent they own? Or, a more ground-up restructuring: what if owning a patent didn't give you full ownership of the technology, but just X% of profit made from it for X years after filing? With this setup, you could further incentivize progress by gran…

Why should patent holders have to show "progress"? Isn't the invention enough? Would they have to invent more or advance it further? Or do you mean commercial progress, making money, building it, etc.? The latter is called "working the patent", which is the opposite of what patent predators, née trolls do. Apparently some countries require holders to work the patent, and I'm a big supporter of fundamental patent refo…

> Your percentage of profits idea is something I liked for a while when I was thinking a lot about reform, but I now think that it would be way too hard to enforce.

You could just do a general per industry tax, which I proposed here a few years ago: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/openmanufacturing/vS4ju1VqXb...

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#109

Post by AnthonyMouse »

Solar19 wrote: post #93
amluto wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abolish it entirely. I'm not really kidding. I think that evidence that patents are beneficial in any field is lacking. Alternatively, a few major reforms would help. For example: 1. Decrease patent terms to just a few years in most fields. 2. Make it clear that math, in any form, is not patentable. Codec patents, for example, should never have been valid. 3. Eliminate submarine patents. Specifically, require patent…

I agree with some of this, and I think most software patents are garbage and should not be legally permitted. But I'm stuck on codecs. Codecs are real, as real as a bag of apples. And they're complicated, extremely specific (and necessarily formally specified), and the result of a lot of work, sometimes brilliant work. If there's any software that has a chance of convincing me of patent worthiness, it's probably code…

> HEVC is pretty amazing though, and it's clearly better than VP9, so it looks like the proprietary stuff beats open source in this field

This is just a restatement of the fact that codec patents exist.

When the state of the art advances because of improvements A to Z and A to W are in the public domain, the proprietary codecs are still "better" because they use A to W plus X, Y and Z which the open source codecs can't use because of the patents.

The real question is whether the patented things would have been invented without the patents. But the answer is probably yes, because the industry is full of huge companies like Google and Netflix that directly benefit from improving compression regardless of whether they can sell it to anyone else.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#110

Post by mrpippy »

magmastonealex wrote: post #19
anabis wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most digital TV broadcasts use MPEG-2, don't they?

Yes, ATSC in North America generally uses MPEG-2 video, in an MPEG-2 transport stream (often with AC-3 as the audio codec). There are provisions to use h.264 within that transport stream, but I'm not sure if any stations actually broadcast with that.

Some cable systems (Comcast has been migrating I believe) do use H.264, but I don’t know of any OTA usage. There is “Mobile DTV” AKA ATSC-M/H which uses H264 and is designed for mobile reception, but stations are rare and commercial adoption is nonexistent.
Post reply on HN