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

Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

tanersener.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 99 posts

Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

#61

Post by amiga386 »

jcranmer wrote: post #45
amiga386 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France was one of the first countries in Europe to ban software patents, in 1968. France is also a party to the European Patent Convention, which specifically states that programs for computers are not patentable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Eur... Software patents are mainly a US-only thing.

There are over 300 French patents in the H.264 license pool, and the very first one looks like a software patent to me, and I suspect most of the rest are the software patents that you confidently claim don't exist.

Maybe the examiner erred in issuing it then, and it needs to be cancelled because it's non-patentable subject matter as per Article 52 of the European Patent Convention.

I don't know how I can be clearer about that. It's literally not allowed, and you think the first one you've looked at has somehow escaped the very direct statement that programs for computers are not patentable subject matter

Perhaps if you'll cite any of those French patents (I note you alluded to "over 300" but managed not to cite any), we can get started on the cancellations

Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

#62

Post by amiga386 »

cm2187 wrote: post #35
amiga386 wrote: post #9

> However, in 2023, MPEG LA was acquired by Via-LA, and everything changed. When I reached out to Via-LA in late 2024 to confirm FFmpegKit’s position under their terms, I received no response. The real reason. Greedy bastards, and the risk of your business being set on fire by greedy bastards, even if they don't have a right to anything - they can still threaten to waste your time and money and offer a shakedown inst…

From the article, Via-LA just didn't respond to the author, that doesn't really say anything about their position. It's a bit premature to call them greedy bastard. The author is doing this out of an abundance of caution, not in response of a legal action.

If I write to the Mafia asking to confirm they won't burn my store to the ground, they won't write back saying "no".

They're not obligated to respond, and they enjoy the fear, uncertainty and doubt their non-response creates.

Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

#63

Post by jcranmer »

amiga386 wrote: post #61
jcranmer wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are over 300 French patents in the H.264 license pool, and the very first one looks like a software patent to me, and I suspect most of the rest are the software patents that you confidently claim don't exist.

Maybe the examiner erred in issuing it then, and it needs to be cancelled because it's non-patentable subject matter as per Article 52 of the European Patent Convention. I don't know how I can be clearer about that. It's literally not allowed, and you think the first one you've looked at has somehow escaped the very direct statement that programs for computers are not patentable subject matter Perhaps if you'll cite…

The first patent I found was EP3975559 (https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/08/b8/01/acb4bfe...)

The complete list of patents in the MPEG-LA for H.264 is here: https://www.via-la.com/wp-content/uploads/Final-February-1-2...

Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

#64

Post by speedgoose »

jcranmer wrote: post #45
amiga386 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

France was one of the first countries in Europe to ban software patents, in 1968. France is also a party to the European Patent Convention, which specifically states that programs for computers are not patentable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patents_under_the_Eur... Software patents are mainly a US-only thing.

There are over 300 French patents in the H.264 license pool, and the very first one looks like a software patent to me, and I suspect most of the rest are the software patents that you confidently claim don't exist.

Either those patents are invalid or they are not French.

Article L611-10:

... 2. Ne sont pas considérées comme des inventions au sens du premier alinéa du présent article notamment :

a) Les découvertes ainsi que les théories scientifiques et les méthodes mathématiques ;

b) Les créations esthétiques ;

c) Les plans, principes et méthodes dans l'exercice d'activités intellectuelles, en matière de jeu ou dans le domaine des activités économiques, ainsi que les programmes d'ordinateurs ;

d) Les présentations d'informations.

https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI0000...

DeepL translation:

2. The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of the first paragraph of this Article

a) discoveries as well as scientific theories and mathematical methods ;

b) aesthetic creations

c) plans, principles and methods for carrying out intellectual activities, games or economic activities, as well as computer programs;

d) Information presentations.

Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

#65

Post by DrillShopper »

stackedinserter wrote: post #54
pjc50 wrote: post #7

Ah, it's MPEG-LA again, the reason why we can't have nice things.

FTFY the laws that allow MPEG-LA to exist are the reason why we can't have nice things.

It can be both - just because it's legal for MPEG-LA to act that way it doesn't require them to do so

Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

#66

Post by jcranmer »

speedgoose wrote: post #64
jcranmer wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are over 300 French patents in the H.264 license pool, and the very first one looks like a software patent to me, and I suspect most of the rest are the software patents that you confidently claim don't exist.

Either those patents are invalid or they are not French. Article L611-10: ... 2. Ne sont pas considérées comme des inventions au sens du premier alinéa du présent article notamment : a) Les découvertes ainsi que les théories scientifiques et les méthodes mathématiques ; b) Les créations esthétiques ; c) Les plans, principes et méthodes dans l'exercice d'activités intellectuelles, en matière de jeu ou dans le domaine…

My suspicion is that software is no less patentable in France (or the EU as a whole) than it is in the US. Which is to say, throw in a generic processor and it's kosher enough to get granted. (Even in the US, Alice says that "do it on a computer" isn't enough to get granted but... that's exactly what happens, and given the long, long list of European patents in the video codec space, it's clearly happening just as much in the EU).

Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

#67

Post by speedgoose »

jcranmer wrote: post #66
speedgoose wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either those patents are invalid or they are not French. Article L611-10: ... 2. Ne sont pas considérées comme des inventions au sens du premier alinéa du présent article notamment : a) Les découvertes ainsi que les théories scientifiques et les méthodes mathématiques ; b) Les créations esthétiques ; c) Les plans, principes et méthodes dans l'exercice d'activités intellectuelles, en matière de jeu ou dans le domaine…

My suspicion is that software is no less patentable in France (or the EU as a whole) than it is in the US. Which is to say, throw in a generic processor and it's kosher enough to get granted. (Even in the US, Alice says that "do it on a computer" isn't enough to get granted but... that's exactly what happens, and given the long, long list of European patents in the video codec space, it's clearly happening just as mu…

My suspicion is that patent offices are accepting obvious invalid patents for money.

Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

#68

Post by amiga386 »

jcranmer wrote: post #63
amiga386 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the examiner erred in issuing it then, and it needs to be cancelled because it's non-patentable subject matter as per Article 52 of the European Patent Convention. I don't know how I can be clearer about that. It's literally not allowed, and you think the first one you've looked at has somehow escaped the very direct statement that programs for computers are not patentable subject matter Perhaps if you'll cite…

The first patent I found was EP3975559 ( https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/08/b8/01/acb4bfe... ) The complete list of patents in the MPEG-LA for H.264 is here: https://www.via-la.com/wp-content/uploads/Final-February-1-2...

The first patent you found is Danish - though is issued in several jurisdictions simultaneously via the EPO.

And yes, it is carefully written to not imply it's patenting a computer program, and yet try to get the maximum "I'll sneak this past the examiners because I really want to patent computer programs" without actually breaching their direct rules about what are and aren't computer programs (and what is and isn't a technical solution, and what is and isn't novel).

So if you want to say "looks like a software patent", the EPO would disagree directly with you, as they literally followed their rules saying don't do that - but the adversary is also trying their best to get software-implementation-fucking patent claims despite those rules. I'd like the EPO to be even stricter, and reject even more claims.

Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

#69

Post by mjevans »

webstrand wrote: post #58
DannyBee wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, patent rights are quite literally the right to exclude others from doing things. That's it. Patent owners don't even have the right to make the invention themselves (because it may infringe on other patents). So your problem is fairly foundational.

The judiciary has decided to ignore the preamble "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". If that language was respected, the way parents currently work would be clearly unconstitutional.

'useful arts' in that era meant what we'd call 'trades skills' today.

'To promote the progress of science (total human knowledge) and skilled technical artisans.'

Arguably, given the pace of technical innovation, and the clear effects on independent artisans, there shouldn't be patents at all. Copyright should also be re-evaluated, and if it still exists (it's so very easy to copy anything these days), and targeted towards maximum cultural diffusion of expressions of ideas within pop-culture cycles (20 years sounds LONG for such a timescale).

Trade Marks, however, those are consumer protection and product reputation issues and call for registered (pay a fee to the government) marks that renew as long as paid.

Re: Saying goodbye to FFmpegKit

#70

Post by DannyBee »

webstrand wrote: post #58
DannyBee wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, patent rights are quite literally the right to exclude others from doing things. That's it. Patent owners don't even have the right to make the invention themselves (because it may infringe on other patents). So your problem is fairly foundational.

The judiciary has decided to ignore the preamble "to promote the progress of science and useful arts". If that language was respected, the way parents currently work would be clearly unconstitutional.

I'm not a fan of patents, but i'm not sure this is fair.

That phrase had a fairly specific meaning back when it was written, and they seem to be hewing to it.

It does not match today's colloquial understanding for sure, but that doesn't mean they are ignoring it.

Post reply on HN