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

41–50 of 186 posts

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

#41

Post by mulmen »

somat wrote: post #21
dlcarrier wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The wright brothers patent was not on wing warping, it was on controlling a vehicle in the air. In short the Wright brothers did not invent the aeroplane they invented how to control a aeroplane. https://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/Wright_Story/Sh... "We wish it to be understood, however, that our invention is not limited to this particular construction, since any construction whereby the angular relations o…

> And you don't think they deserve exclusive exploitation rights to that discipline for the next 20 years?

20 years is the midpoint between the Wright Brother’s flight and operational jet fighters. They won the race but it was very much a competition. If Orville and Wilbur didn’t cross the line first then Maxim or Langley would have. They all built on George Cayley’s work.

So no, I don’t think the first one to file a plausible patent should get exclusive rights. It should at least extend to contemporaries. And we should consider the cost to innovation when breakthroughs are artificially constrained for what amounts to multiple technological generations.

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

#42

Post by Shitty-kitty »

chrismorgan wrote: post #38
Shitty-kitty wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wou…

You are wrong about why open-source projects are banning AI contributions. While vibe-coded slop is obviously a pain, many are banning even their own well-known contributors from using A.I to write large parts of code due to legal concerns.

I'm sure the patent/copyright trolls care a lot about the "industry." It is still the early days but eventually they will come on knocking.

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

#43

Post by childintime »

_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…

Solo geniuses don't have the money to operate the patent system, it doesn't work for them. All they can do is sell for cheap or else get bogged down. When they invent as an employee they outright don't own it. That's a moral outrage. And that's what the patent system is to individuals.

Good luck publishing in Costa Rica. When you're not privileged you're likely to be on the losing end. So what use is it? Better keep your invention a secret, like most do, and let the next generation display themselves as the inventors. That's the alternate reality the system actually supports.

The whole system should be scrapped. Publishing is easy nowadays, just do it. Then you'd have the rights of you can prove you're the first. Anyone that wants to use can/must give you a known amount of royalties, depending on whether the invention is a unique enabler of a class of products, or just an optimization. Which it will become over time. If you don't want that, keep it a secret and build company around it.

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

#44

Post by thayne »

SoftTalker wrote: post #14
fluoridation wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having people create new technology to avoid arbitrary legal hurdles instead of adopting existing and perfectly functional technology doesn't seem particularly efficient.

The intent of the patent system is to encourage publishing innovation in exchange for rights to it for a period of time, and then everyone gets to use it. IMO the biggest problem has been granting patents for inventions that at least in retrospect seem non-novel or obvious. I get that there's a grey area there at some point, but "one click ordering" is one that comes to mind. Just because someone hasn't done it exact…

That's one problem. 25 years is also a really long time in fast moving fields like software, microchips, etc. And the format the invention is "published" as is essentially a legal document, often largely written by lawyers for a target audience of patent clerks and other lawyers, not a technical specification written for engineers and scientists. And the is an incentive to omit or obscure details important to actually replicating the invention.

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

#45

Post by somat »

Shitty-kitty wrote: post #34
somat wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It does not help that things fundamental to the new tech, even though they took real effort to develop, are now exactly those items that are now "obvious to experts in the field" and "overly broad" And then have fun trying to distinguish real fundamentals from items in the form of (existing invention "with a computer") Or whatever the hot new tech of the day is.

A good example(old enough to not matter any more) is the how the Wright brothers invented something fundamentally new, their patent was on how to control an airplane, The problem is, once you see it, it is obvious how to control an airplane. Birds do it, Why should such an simple thing be protected? But conversely. This is a discipline that took the Wrights many years of hard and meticulous work to figure out. Is it morally correct to say "No, we are not going to grant you exploitation rights to this thing you invested so much time and effort developing"?

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

#47

Post by natpalmer1776 »

mulmen wrote: post #41
somat wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wright brothers patent was not on wing warping, it was on controlling a vehicle in the air. In short the Wright brothers did not invent the aeroplane they invented how to control a aeroplane. https://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/Wright_Story/Sh... "We wish it to be understood, however, that our invention is not limited to this particular construction, since any construction whereby the angular relations o…

> And you don't think they deserve exclusive exploitation rights to that discipline for the next 20 years? 20 years is the midpoint between the Wright Brother’s flight and operational jet fighters. They won the race but it was very much a competition. If Orville and Wilbur didn’t cross the line first then Maxim or Langley would have. They all built on George Cayley’s work. So no, I don’t think the first one to file a…

Very much this. The incentive to create and invent is often largely financial, however that incentive need not be constructed as “winner takes all” rather we should lift each other up in our mutual accomplishments.

Unfortunately in my own ruminating on the topic the only practical alternatives seem to be one or more variations on the scary boogey man of socialism.

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

#48

Post by Tostino »

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.

I somehow never see this happening. Like, ever. I just don't think it's something to seriously entertain.

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

#49

Post by kelseyfrog »

fluoridation wrote: post #10
dlcarrier wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Having people create new technology to avoid arbitrary legal hurdles instead of adopting existing and perfectly functional technology doesn't seem particularly efficient.

Why can't the market work it out on its own? People will buy superior products.

Governments mucking around with things like patents only distorts markets in ways that make them inefficient, and ultimately worse. Anyone who thinks the government's intervention improves things hasn't been at the business end of the government.

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

#50

Post by WalterBright »

mulmen wrote: post #41
somat wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wright brothers patent was not on wing warping, it was on controlling a vehicle in the air. In short the Wright brothers did not invent the aeroplane they invented how to control a aeroplane. https://www.wright-brothers.org/History_Wing/Wright_Story/Sh... "We wish it to be understood, however, that our invention is not limited to this particular construction, since any construction whereby the angular relations o…

> And you don't think they deserve exclusive exploitation rights to that discipline for the next 20 years? 20 years is the midpoint between the Wright Brother’s flight and operational jet fighters. They won the race but it was very much a competition. If Orville and Wilbur didn’t cross the line first then Maxim or Langley would have. They all built on George Cayley’s work. So no, I don’t think the first one to file a…

The Wrights were about 5 years ahead of their time. The Wrights went about it as an R+D project and calculated what the design must be, while the other developers were doing seat-of-the-pants designs which worked about as expected.
Post reply on HN