71–80 of 127 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would Google need to partner/collaborate to steal what would be publicly described in a patent?
My guess would be that the patent lacks some of the implementation details, and allowed them to create a product that worked as well easily. Bear in mind, most generic-sounding software patents aren't going to give you any actual code to look at.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Software patents are an anathema on innovation. I'd go so far as to say all corporate patents are a hindrance to innovation. We're not in the days of singular inventors profiting off their inventions, which I'm fine with, as when corporations become patent trolls or create such broad patents like "able to play back on a device," then it gets a little ridiculous.
In my opinion all intellectual property restrictions reduce the rate of innovation, with the sum total of all present day laws dramatically reducing the rate of innovate compared to what it could be. For example 3D printers were patented in 1989, then first sold for $50k in 1995, sold still under patent for $25k ten years later, then patents expired in 2008, within three years a decent printer was $1800, and ten year…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my opinion all intellectual property restrictions reduce the rate of innovation, with the sum total of all present day laws dramatically reducing the rate of innovate compared to what it could be. For example 3D printers were patented in 1989, then first sold for $50k in 1995, sold still under patent for $25k ten years later, then patents expired in 2008, within three years a decent printer was $1800, and ten year…
I don't know about this. Without protection from copiers, there is no incentive for anyone to create a new mechanism or invention. It's true that patents can slow the growth of an invention after it is created, but you haven't accounted whether patents incentivize more inventions. That might (and probably does) outweigh the technological progress on a particular invention that a monopoly impedes.
Totally untrue and this is one of the weird myths people have been taught, despite obvious evidence to the contrary. Very likely this website is running on Linux, an OS created in part by corporate contributors but also in a huge way created by people who work while explicitly enabling free copies of their work. And of course with my 3D printer example, thousands of hackers from all over the world contributed to design improvements because they wanted to, sharing their work for free as open source. And then there's Bunnie Huang's wonderful story on the ground from a highly productive space with rampant copying:
https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=284
If you believe "there is no incentive" then none of the above would be true, but since it is true I would invite you to think critically about your starting assumptions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about this. Without protection from copiers, there is no incentive for anyone to create a new mechanism or invention. It's true that patents can slow the growth of an invention after it is created, but you haven't accounted whether patents incentivize more inventions. That might (and probably does) outweigh the technological progress on a particular invention that a monopoly impedes.
> Without protection from copiers, there is no incentive for anyone to create a new mechanism or invention. Totally untrue and this is one of the weird myths people have been taught, despite obvious evidence to the contrary. Very likely this website is running on Linux, an OS created in part by corporate contributors but also in a huge way created by people who work while explicitly enabling free copies of their work…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "novelty" (idk how novel it is really, but they present it as such) is not in speakers playing the same audio or L/R at the same time, but individual autonomous playback devices being grouped and ungrouped, so that they can be controlled as a unit when grouped.
"Simple Jack panel, but computer controlled" is not novel and should not be patentable.
As far as I can tell, these are the patents mentioned in the document: Method and apparatus for adjusting volume levels in a multi-zone system - https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en System and method for synchronizing operations among a plurality of independently clocked digital data processing devices - https://patents.google.com/patent/US9195258B2/en Multi-channel pairing in a media system - https://pat…
The "novelty" (idk how novel it is really, but they present it as such) is not in speakers playing the same audio or L/R at the same time, but individual autonomous playback devices being grouped and ungrouped, so that they can be controlled as a unit when grouped.
This is the reason the physical volume buttons on Android 12 on Pixel phones no longer adjust Chromecasted music volume, unless you are in the music app in question. Adjusting Spotify cast on the Google Home used to be so easy... https://www.androidpolice.com/google-had-to-remove-cast-volu...
January 2022 Pixel update fixes Chromecast controls for most apps on Android 12 https://www.realmicentral.com/2022/01/06/january-2022-pixel-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Without protection from copiers, there is no incentive for anyone to create a new mechanism or invention. Totally untrue and this is one of the weird myths people have been taught, despite obvious evidence to the contrary. Very likely this website is running on Linux, an OS created in part by corporate contributors but also in a huge way created by people who work while explicitly enabling free copies of their work…
No incentive might be hyperbolic, but this is an HN comment. I meant less incentive. https://rufuspollock.com/papers/optimal_copyright_term.pdf
But take the 3D printer example. Development by my subjective take seemed way more effective without patents. So why have them at all? More people did more work on them after the patents expired. Why have any period of limited growth if there will simply be more growth without the restrictions?
Well, I haven't proven completely that this concept is universally true, but I worry that "playing it safe" and just fighting to keep shorter restrictions is like loosening the rope around your neck when you really should remove it.
And your paper suggests they have a really nice formula ("99% confidence interval") for calculating the optimal term. But how would you calculate the optimal term for patents on AIDS medications during the height of the AIDS pandemic in Africa in the 1990's.[1] How much is each life worth? I question anyone who thinks their formula can calculate optimality on figures alone.
[1] https://www.mmegi.bw/features/the-neoliberal-plague-aids-and...
EDIT: I should underscore that there are a lot of natural reasons why someone would be in a position to invest in a particular innovation. We say we love free markets because natural incentives work best. No constraints but the laws of physics. IP restrictions are very unnatural.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ignoring the HN-pleasing "Patents are horrible" (to which I agree btw), the patents are very specifically about the opposite of independent volume control: They are about setting up groups of speakers which can be controlled together.
Sure. Replace "independently" with "dependently" in my comment. That distinction changes nothing about the novelty of such a system. The volume knob on your stereo from 1960 controls both the left and right speaker volume, at the same time . Woah.
As far as I can tell, these are the patents mentioned in the document: Method and apparatus for adjusting volume levels in a multi-zone system - https://patents.google.com/patent/US8588949B2/en System and method for synchronizing operations among a plurality of independently clocked digital data processing devices - https://patents.google.com/patent/US9195258B2/en Multi-channel pairing in a media system - https://pat…
Remember the ITC is NOT a court, it's part of the executive branch. Their decisions are appealable to the federal circuit but they are effectively never stayed pending appeal (because there is already an appeals process built into the ITC). There is an interesting counterintuitive game that is played where the defendant tries to get MORE of their products included in the exclusion order to make an appeal easier. Sono…