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

131–140 of 180 posts

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#131

Post by kuschku »

amluto wrote: post #77
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.

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…

That won't work.

Already today many companies don't even patent stuff anymore, but claim their technologies to be trade secrets, and still manage to prosecute anyone trying to share them.

From Waymks Lidar to SpaceX tech to Google's TPUs, both is even patented anymore, it's not even published in any way.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#132

Post by a_imho »

zanny wrote: post #34
amelius wrote: post #22

As an aside, MPEG-LA already moved on, forming other patent pools such as for CRISPR (the gene editing technology). See their website: http://www.mpegla.com/main/default.aspx

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…

broken IP law

Unfortunately I think they are working as intended.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#133

Post by cornholio »

pitaj wrote: post #37
Crontab wrote: post #4

This is a striking example of the need to shorten software patents; if we really must have them at all.

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.

There is a fundamental difference between copyright and patents: the field of content creators if infinite and no works will ever by identical, writing a great symphony or game does not prevent anybody in the future do write another; in stark contrast inventors deal with the limitations of the real world, with physics and technology, there are a limited number of good solutions to a given problem and a patent on an obvious and straightforward solution is a major hindrance to everybody else.

Further more, copyright is self funded, it's an ideal public policy choice if we want to promote positive externalities: the creator takes all the risk and costs of production, and monetizes his work on the free market, where it's bought only if it's any good, or ignored otherwise with no ill effect on anybody else. Someone else can freely create a cheaper work fulfilling the same human need, ensuring perfect competition.

Patents are not self funded, inventors are not required to put the invention to work and demonstrate it in the market, rather, the patent is issued by merely presenting a description of the invention to the government, without proving any investment or development effort. If such patents with zero creative investment are issued, they are a major negative externality to everybody working in the same field, who now have to work around or pay rent for a solution that would be obvious or result after basic R&D activities. In effect, the combined rent they extract from society is a tax that funds "inventors" to "disclose" more and more such ideas of limited value that block technological progress.

I do agree copyright terms are absurdly long, way past the point where there is zero practical benefit for society: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16361159

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#134

Post by espadrine »

amluto wrote: post #77
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.

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…

> Abolish it entirely.

The original argument for patents was to avoid secret sauces that die with their companies.

The reality is that companies that would use secret sauces still do, and those whose technology would be trivially reverse-engineerable patent it.

And a plethora of secret-sauce companies give up and publish to attract talent: see Apple’s move to publish about ML.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#135

Post by izacus »

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.

Did GPL or MIT ever actually go to court to enforce the license?

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#136

Post by pjc50 »

herogreen wrote: post #10

I wonder if this will affect the existence of the Raspberry Pi's binary blob ? I remember Liz Upton saying "[MPEG2 licensing] is a reason we have to keep the blob, unfortunately, or we’d be sued into a smoking hole in the ground by the MPEG LA" on this page: https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/a-birthday-present-from-bro... Also does it mean that the Raspberry Fundation could provide the MPEG2 hardware decoder license k…

Don't forget that there are two hardware codec licenses, MPEG-2 and VC-1.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#137

Post by izacus »

sitkack wrote: post #106
ozmbie wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Well people did exactly that - and they named it:

  - MPEG-4 Part 2 (also known under names like DivX, Xvid, ...)
  - MPEG-4 Part 11 (also known as AVC, H.264, ...)
  - VP8
  - VP9
  - AV1
  - MPEG-H Part 2 (also known as HEVC, H.265)
Those are all codecs that build on and extend what MPEG-2 is.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#138

Post by clort »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #69
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.

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.

Out of interest, what of the research that the government inevitably declines to fund, for whatever reason? Should a private entity be allowed to do the research and monetise the results? I ask because, you know, its an obvious question and lawyers would be asking in the courts.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#139

Post by amelius »

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.

One approach would be to have a technology-challenge period.

Everyone who wants to file a patent should first post a challenge. Other parties then have, say, 1 year to come up with a solution. If none is found, the patent is granted.

This would, of course, not solve all patent problems, but it could be a first step to solve the most obvious ones.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#140

Post by knowThySelfx »

1123581321 wrote: post #118
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The lives not lost because of the drive to discover patentable research would need to be measured against that. (I assume you do not believe there is such a drive, but I think that researchers can have multiple, co-existing motivations.)

Maybe we can still keep the patent tag, but devoid of any other conditions except that this one tech was created by the patent holder. In this case, the "patentable" motivation will still be valid.
Post reply on HN