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

Tandberg attempts to patent x264 open source algorithm

x264dev.multimedia.cx

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 46 posts

Re: Tandberg attempts to patent x264 open source algorithm

#21

Post by wtallis »

astrange wrote: post #19
antimatter15 wrote: post #18

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." - Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution

This is a pandering quote which everyone already knows and not really a useful comment at all.

I don't see how the quote was relevant given that there is already plenty of evidence that will defeat the patent application, but it seems like very few people actually know the constitutional basis for intellectual property laws.

Even here on HN, I've seen posts from people who think patents are intended as a reward for inventors, rather than an incentive to invent. Under US law, inventors and writers do not automatically deserve exclusive rights - those rights are granted only as a means to encourage progress.

Re: Tandberg attempts to patent x264 open source algorithm

#22

Post by lwhi »

antimatter15 wrote: post #14
jrockway wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By similar logic, copyright should be abolished because someone plagiarised their final English paper? People will always abuse any system, but that doesn't mean the system should be taken away from everyone else. I don't like software patents, but this is not a software patent issue. It's an "intellectual dishonesty" issue -- taking credit for someone else's work.

Even if copyright was hypothetically abolished, it doesn't make this "intellectual dishonesty" any less intellectually dishonest. In that case, it would be up to the school to penalize that - which is exactly what happens most of the time anyway. The existence of the patent system encourages people to commit such "intellectual dishonesty" by providing a monopolistic and monetary incentive for doing it. There's a diff…

I'm sorry, but the patent system didn't place a gun at this guy's head and force him to make the application.

If he definitely chose to do a dishonest thing, perhaps he should be punished accordingly.

Re: Tandberg attempts to patent x264 open source algorithm

#23

Post by nickpinkston »

sulla wrote: post #15

Given that there was the possibility of a 'three-strikes' provision for copyright abusers in ACTA, there should at least be a discussion about penalties for patent owners that makes it so the owner can no longer file any patents if a certain number of patents are invalidated.

I love it - but the patent-anything crew (IBM, Intel, etc.) would throw all their money at that. Maybe at least a percentage of total patents after the first 10 invalid ones, or something similar?

Re: Tandberg attempts to patent x264 open source algorithm

#26

Post by sili »

lwhi wrote: post #24

I dislike the patent system, and I also dislike dishonesty - but could it have been possible that the person accused might have stumbled across the same solution independently?

If the person came up with the solution on his own, wouldn't he patent it in full including the missing piece that the author checked in only later? Without that piece, the solution does not work.

Re: Tandberg attempts to patent x264 open source algorithm

#28

Post by JVerstry »

"35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent. A person shall be entitled to a patent unless (a)the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or ... (f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

Even if Tandberg were granted a patent because the USPTO missed the information provided in the post, it would not stand in court.

Such information should be communicated to the USPTO to have them kill the application during examination.

Case closed.

Re: Tandberg attempts to patent x264 open source algorithm

#29

Post by kqueue »

ig1 wrote: post #4

Tandberg was acquired earlier this year by Cisco, if anyone has any Cisco contacts it might be worth bringing this to their attention as Cisco may not be aware of this as it happened prior to their acquisition. Cisco HR peeps have been quite active in the UK developer community recruiting for Tandberg recently, I'll forward this to one of them to see if can get some attention.

I'll see what I can do.

Re: Tandberg attempts to patent x264 open source algorithm

#30

Post by DarkShikari »

sili wrote: post #26
lwhi wrote: post #24

I dislike the patent system, and I also dislike dishonesty - but could it have been possible that the person accused might have stumbled across the same solution independently?

If the person came up with the solution on his own, wouldn't he patent it in full including the missing piece that the author checked in only later? Without that piece, the solution does not work.

No, it works -- that was just an extra optimization.
Post reply on HN