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

A 25-year-old video patent just expired, ending a legal headache for Linux

xda-developers.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 186 posts

Re: A 25-year-old video patent just expired, ending a legal headache for Linux

#31

Post by wmf »

dlcarrier wrote: post #4
unfitted2545 wrote: post #2

Are patents a necessary evil?

I used to think they were entirely useless, but since then I've learned of many instances where a much better technology is developed because the first iteration is patented. For example, the Wright brothers biggest contribution to aviation was suing everyone using wing warping ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_brothers_patent_war ) which greatly advanced the adoption of the much more advanced ailerons. Software…

For every case like this, there's a patent on an optimal method which forces everyone to use suboptimal workarounds.

Re: A 25-year-old video patent just expired, ending a legal headache for Linux

#32

Post by Shitty-kitty »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #25
unfitted2545 wrote: post #2

Are patents a necessary evil?

A patent was meant to give a solo genius a way to treat their idea as something tangible, at a time when logistics was much slower and the world revolved around the physical. Maybe they try to develop it themselves, maybe they sell the idea to a big corporation that has the resources to implement it. Either way, genius begets profit, and the world gets genius ideas... in theory anyway. But a genuine idea back then ne…

A patent is meant to encourage people and companies to share the details of their inventions, instead of keeping them secret. In return the inventors get protection for a certain number of years.

Re: A 25-year-old video patent just expired, ending a legal headache for Linux

#33

Post by Shitty-kitty »

bitwize wrote: post #24
unfitted2545 wrote: post #2

Are patents a necessary evil?

Software patents may be what saves the field. Currently copyright as an IP protection for software has been rendered near meaningless by AI. If I can get one AI to reverse engineer Photoshop, and another to implement the produced spec, I have a copyright-clean version of Photoshop. Patents protect the idea of a particular program. And in the post-AI world, it's the idea that holds the value, not the implementation. I…

You don't know what code the A.I has been trained on. It may very well be reproducing actual Copyrighted material it has been trained on.

This is the major reason why most large open-source projects are banning big code contributions made with A.I

Re: A 25-year-old video patent just expired, ending a legal headache for Linux

#34

Post by Shitty-kitty »

somat wrote: post #23
unfitted2545 wrote: post #2

Are patents a necessary evil?

I don't think patents are inherently evil, however they certainly can be used for evil. But The basic idea is sound. If you invent a novel mechanism and publish it the government will grant you exclusive economic exploitation rights to that mechanism for the next 25 years. After that it is now fair game. It is an attempt to solve the real problem that it is much harder to be first than second, the guy in first place…

The problem often stems from the Patent Offices getting caught flat-footed with new tech. When the patent officers don't know enough about the field they are reviewing it is easy for things which are "obvious to experts in the field" or "overly broad" to slip thru and cause major headaches for everyone.

Re: A 25-year-old video patent just expired, ending a legal headache for Linux

#35

Post by xpct »

_carbyau_ wrote: post #25
unfitted2545 wrote: post #2

Are patents a necessary evil?

A patent was meant to give a solo genius a way to treat their idea as something tangible, at a time when logistics was much slower and the world revolved around the physical. Maybe they try to develop it themselves, maybe they sell the idea to a big corporation that has the resources to implement it. Either way, genius begets profit, and the world gets genius ideas... in theory anyway. But a genuine idea back then ne…

That, and we're also past the need for geniuses to keep grinding in a cave, in hopes of landing a patent.

People are far more empowered today, many more can work near the bleeding edge, and funding can be arranged in different ways than holding on to a patent.

Re: A 25-year-old video patent just expired, ending a legal headache for Linux

#36

Post by dymk »

senshan wrote: post #26
nemomarx wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this was the final patent on it that was valid anywhere, so now the status changes from "someone has a patent globally and we need to consider this" to "no one has a patent." If you're distributing something globally, even one market that still has the patent might stop you from default shipping a driver touching on it, or you might have to worry about court orders at least. It's hard to avoid jurisdictions o…

Right, but I thought it matters only if you sell something globally. Linux is distributed for free, so the burden of patent compliance is on the user, isn't it?

Plenty of open source software avoids using patents even though it’s free. Selling doesn’t factor into it.

Re: A 25-year-old video patent just expired, ending a legal headache for Linux

#37

Post by dymk »

yndoendo wrote: post #15
ThrowawayTestr wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software patents, no. They're just evil.

Depends on how they are used. Let say you come up with a patent. You let open source use the patent, GPL3 ..., for free why charging close source solutions. That could go to funding the open source development or other gains. FANNG has the money, take it from the them by all means.

So basically never

Re: A 25-year-old video patent just expired, ending a legal headache for Linux

#38

Post by chrismorgan »

Shitty-kitty wrote: post #33
bitwize wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software patents may be what saves the field. Currently copyright as an IP protection for software has been rendered near meaningless by AI. If I can get one AI to reverse engineer Photoshop, and another to implement the produced spec, I have a copyright-clean version of Photoshop. Patents protect the idea of a particular program. And in the post-AI world, it's the idea that holds the value, not the implementation. I…

You don't know what code the A.I has been trained on. It may very well be reproducing actual Copyrighted material it has been trained on. This is the major reason why most large open-source projects are banning big code contributions made with A.I

Most large open-source projects banning AI contributions have been doing it for social and technical reasons, not legal.

As for the copyright infringement angle, it’s well and truly too late for that to be a meaningful problem, socially and politically. It’s easily in “too big to fail” territory now—any striking down of the “fair use” exemption claim would kill the entire industry dead, because every one of them would have to throw away all their models and synthetic data and start again, and that’s geopolitically untenable. They moved too fast for judiciary to regulate them, and I think the window of opportunity for legislature to regulate them closed no later than 2024.

Re: A 25-year-old video patent just expired, ending a legal headache for Linux

#39

Post by mrheosuper »

cogman10 wrote: post #7
dlcarrier wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The benefit comes from no one ever using the earlier inferior versions.

Correct. 5 years is long enough to kill off inferior standards and let superior ones blossom.

if it's inferior, why does it matter if it's 5 years or 25 years ?

Re: A 25-year-old video patent just expired, ending a legal headache for Linux

#40

Post by stonedivot »

cogman10 wrote: post #7
dlcarrier wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The benefit comes from no one ever using the earlier inferior versions.

Correct. 5 years is long enough to kill off inferior standards and let superior ones blossom.

Why do you think it always only takes 5 years to develop some superior technology? 5 years seems like a short enough time frame that a company would rather just wait out the patent than invest heavily in R&D in the off chance they come up with a viable alternative (that now of course THEY can only protect for 5 years)
Post reply on HN