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

171–180 of 180 posts

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#171

Post by Godel_unicode »

paulmd wrote: post #87
Godel_unicode wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The algorithm is the abstract class, or possibly the spec, and software is one possible implementation. They’re at different levels of abstraction.

Both software and algorithms are an emergent property of the rules of the systems we create. They are essentially akin to prime numbers, in a direct and provable sense. (1) All computable programs can be expressed as a Universal Turing machine. (2) There are countably many Universal Turing machines (3) In an abstract sense, we can thus assign a unique identifier to each possible computer program. I can tell you "run…

First, Shor's algorithm (as an example) cannot be expressed as a Universal Turing Machine. You are thinking much too small, software implementations on Turing Machines are possible for a strict subset of possible algorithms.

Second, even for algorithms which can be expressed as Turing Machines, you are giving the computer science equivalent of saying that a house and it's architecture drawing are the same. One is a thing which exists, one is a description of the thing. You cannot run an unimplemented algorithm without first doing the work of implementing it.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#172

Post by thaumasiotes »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #171
paulmd wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both software and algorithms are an emergent property of the rules of the systems we create. They are essentially akin to prime numbers, in a direct and provable sense. (1) All computable programs can be expressed as a Universal Turing machine. (2) There are countably many Universal Turing machines (3) In an abstract sense, we can thus assign a unique identifier to each possible computer program. I can tell you "run…

First, Shor's algorithm (as an example) cannot be expressed as a Universal Turing Machine. You are thinking much too small, software implementations on Turing Machines are possible for a strict subset of possible algorithms. Second, even for algorithms which can be expressed as Turing Machines, you are giving the computer science equivalent of saying that a house and it's architecture drawing are the same. One is a t…

If we lose all of our compilers, processors, etc., would the source code to Windows stop being software?

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#173

Post by kanzure »

cornholio wrote: post #130
kanzure wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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...

If I understand correctly, you propose a tax that everybody in the industry pays, that is shared with all relevant "inventors". I don't think it's a workable sistem since it removes the free market from the distribution and replace it with a committee driven disbursal of fees, offering little incentive to disclose valuable ideas. I would much rather see a large patent fee with annual inflation indexing for the patent…

> it removes the free market from the distribution and replace it with a committee driven disbursal of fees

In a (strained) sense, that's already what the USPTO is doing. Except it's also associated with all this technology innovation stuff, which we would like them to stay away from.

> If you are not sure if your "idea" is valuable, then you don't deserve a patent.

I'll have to play around with that idea.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#174

Post by hmm_really »

dragonwriter wrote: post #76
davidp wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Thats simply wrong, educate yourself young man!

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#175

Post by Solar19 »

clouddrover wrote: post #122
Solar19 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Now some companies have teamed up for AV1, FOSS. I guess we'll see how good it is compared to HEVC. Here are some comparisons between AV1, VP9, HEVC, and H.264: http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/News/Online-Video-New... Whether or not VP9 beats HEVC, its advantages are that it beats H.264, can be used without the licensing headaches of HEVC (or H.264), and has double the decoder base of HEVC: https://ngcodec.c…

That second link is remarkably hard to read. I hate this hipster web design trend of using faint text that barely contrasts with the background. That's so the opposite of what a reading experience should be.

Anyway, on VP9... its disadvantage is that it's very computationally taxing compared to H.264 (and presumably VP8). MS Edge won't use VP9 on laptops that don't have hardware decoding for it, because decoding VP9 with software kills battery life. Are other browsers following similar policies on laptops? (this is only applies when the laptop is running on battery, and Edge will let you force VP9 even on battery in its flags).

H.264 is quite elegant and efficient from a computational perspective. Note that even when laptops have and use hardware decoding for VP9, they still use more battery than hardware decoding H.264 (which will be in any computer that has hardware for VP9). Though there must be a threshold where a difference in bitrate would equalize them.

I guess the days of H.264 computational efficiency are over if we want better compression. I'll read your links to see what to expect from AV1.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#176

Post by Solar19 »

phkahler wrote: post #155
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

AV1 is better than HEVC, is not patented, and was invented by companies interested in conserving bandwidth out of need. So yes, things get invented without patents.

AV1 is better than HEVC? I've never heard this claim. Does AV1 even exist in final form yet?

Is it going to use more battery than HEVC? VP9 uses much more battery than H.264. Even when both have hardware decoders, VP9 uses a bit more juice. It's the computational complexity difference. Of course HEVC probably uses more juice than h.264 as well, but VP9 is notoriously inefficient and it would suck if AV1 was less energy efficient than HEVC.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#177

Post by e12e »

jacquesm wrote: post #47
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.

Be careful, you just might get what you wish for. There definitely are major problems with the patent system and with copyright but without them there would be other problems taking the place of the ones that we have now. Reform is the way to go, and reform - good reform anyway - is hard to get right.

> other problems taking the place of the ones that we have now.

Such as? I know I've benefited immensely from works out of copyright, and works in Copyleft etc.

I've bought no books because of copyright - but some under open licenses (not many to chose from though...).

I'm not clear on how hw patents have played out in my life - I'd love to see some numbers indicating a net benefit for the world population from copyright and patents. Especially considering systematic subversion seems as old as enforcement (from bootleg music to cloned hw).

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#178

Post by TheDong »

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…

That's a bit of a jump. You go from "mechanical systems are patentable" + "some software emulates mechanical systems (which are patentable)" to "all software, regardless of whether it is related to a real mechanical system, is patentable".

Does that not seem like a huge leap? mpeg2 sure isn't encoding a mechanical mechanism. Hardly any software these days really is. Software now is mostly focussed on dealing with ætherial information, not physical machines.

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#179

Post by shawnz »

TheDong wrote: post #178
jcranmer wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

That's a bit of a jump. You go from "mechanical systems are patentable" + "some software emulates mechanical systems (which are patentable)" to "all software, regardless of whether it is related to a real mechanical system, is patentable". Does that not seem like a huge leap? mpeg2 sure isn't encoding a mechanical mechanism. Hardly any software these days really is. Software now is mostly focussed on dealing with æth…

Well, the physical universe is turing complete, so it is obviously at least possible to build a mechanical mpeg2 encoder. Should it be patentable?

Re: MPEG-2 Patents Have Expired

#180

Post by Houshalter »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #112
Houshalter wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Make it clear that math, in any form, is not patentable. Ok but CRISPR isn't math. And the distinction between designing an algorithm and designing a machine is kind of arbitrary. If you are going to get rid of one you should get rid of the other and abolish patents entirely.

> And the distinction between designing an algorithm and designing a machine is kind of arbitrary. The distinction isn't arbitrary. If you can do something entirely in math/software then you can also hard code it into a physical machine, but the reverse obviously isn't true. There is no calculation you can perform on an abstract Turing machine that will cause it to generate electricity or thrust or refine steel or ph…

I don't see the difference. The process of designing a thing is the same whether it's an algorithm or a pile of gears. Sure real world inventions can involve new scientific discoveries. But most don't, and scientific discoveries shouldn't be patentable anyway.
Post reply on HN