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

The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

iis.fraunhofer.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 291 posts

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#81

Post by khedoros1 »

a3n wrote: post #43
pdeuchler wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All software can be reduced to mathematical formulae, which cannot be patented, so no. There should be no such thing as a software patent.

I'm very sympathetic to the idea of disallowing software patents; to my layman's sensibilities, so many of them are ridiculous, or after the fact grants of something that has been done in practice for years, or predatory, or all that and more. However, any physical machine or process can be reduced to the laws of physics, and you can't patent the laws of physics as far as I know. I don't think "reduced to mathematica…

The loom? Sure. The exact pattern on the cards themselves? Maybe not. I'd say no, but I recognize that US law currently says differently.

It seems like the old pattern of "Patent a certain method of weaving brocade", then later "Patent a certain method of weaving brocade...on (mechanical) computers!"

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#82

Post by JumpCrisscross »

Manchit wrote: post #72
TD-Linux wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not believing in software patents is unlikely to change a court's mind. Instead, support formats that are royalty free from the start - Vorbis, Opus, and Codec2, for example.

This has been confusing me for a long time. As far as I know, it's clearly stated that software is not applicable to patent.

> it's clearly stated that software is not applicable to patent

Given that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has been giving software patents a good deal of thought (not to mention issuing software patents) [1], I'd say the situation is anything but "clear".

[1] https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/examination-soft...

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#83

Post by alerighi »

throwaway91111 wrote: post #67
TD-Linux wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not believing in software patents is unlikely to change a court's mind. Instead, support formats that are royalty free from the start - Vorbis, Opus, and Codec2, for example.

How do you "support a format"? AFAIK nothing will convince Apple to release music in a better (patent-free) codec, much less convince others to dump DRM.

So don't buy music from Apple, or from anyone else that sells it in non-free formats

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#85

Post by PatentTroll »

magila wrote: post #37
JohnJamesRambo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you don't believe in software patents?

Software is already covered by copyright. Granting it parent protection as well allows software companies to double dip in a way that no other industry can.

Well, copyright covers an implementation of software, but a clean-room rewrite can get around a copyright of software. In that way, no, copyright is not a real way to protect software.

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#86

Post by wbl »

vkou wrote: post #62
mark-r wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing unique about software that makes it more likely to be developed independently by many inventors, the same happens often with hardware patents. And the same argument applies - the patent system as a whole impedes progress as much (or more?) than it advances it.

The argument for why software patents are different is premised by why patents exist. They exist to grant someone a monopoly in exchange for them sharing their invention with the world. If I patent a dishwasher that does not clog, I will be rewarded for my invention... But once the patent expires, a skilled engineer will be able to look at my patent, and build a dishwasher that does not clog - in far less time then i…

Not true for compression patents.

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#87

Post by rhino369 »

Manchit wrote: post #72
TD-Linux wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not believing in software patents is unlikely to change a court's mind. Instead, support formats that are royalty free from the start - Vorbis, Opus, and Codec2, for example.

This has been confusing me for a long time. As far as I know, it's clearly stated that software is not applicable to patent.

You can get a patent over software that is sufficient non-abstract. Where the line is drawn is extremely unclear. But there are valid software patents.

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#88

Post by jonny_eh »

rayiner wrote: post #66
magila wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software is already covered by copyright. Granting it parent protection as well allows software companies to double dip in a way that no other industry can.

Copyright and patents protect entirely different kinds of software. Copyright protects software that's more work to write than to think about ( e.g. Windows). Patents protect software that's more work to think about than to write ( e.g. PageRank or whatever's inside Google's self-driving cars).

Why not grant patents to the self-driving car as a whole? In Canada, you cannot patent software unless it's within the scope of a physical product, like a car.

Also, PageRank clearly doesn't need a patent. Google's done just fine against competitors that have ripped off their technique.

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#89

Post by JumpCrisscross »

2bluesc wrote: post #70
throwaway91111 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you "support a format"? AFAIK nothing will convince Apple to release music in a better (patent-free) codec, much less convince others to dump DRM.

> How do you "support a format"? AFAIK nothing will convince Apple to release music in a better (patent-free) codec, much less convince others to dump DRM. Then you start by not giving them your money. It's a uphill battle, but someone has to fight the good fight instead of just throwing their hands-up.

> someone has to fight the good fight

That's a noble, if politically naïve, attitude. Societies, like Congress, have a limited bandwidth for problem solving. The way we prioritize what gets solved and what doesn't, as well as how to solve it, is "politics". (This is more a matter of definition than quibbling.)

There are various political institutions, and individuals have varying degrees of influence over them, depending on how one's society is structured. But unvaryingly, attracting people with political capital to your cause is paramount. This is often done by showing such people an agglomeration of individuals supporting your cause, individually with less political value than them but collectively something interesting.

Even the people at the bottom of the chain have limited bandwidth. This is why most systems default to delegation, particularly at scale. Single-handedly refusing to support something you think is important without patching that into a political system is fine from a personal or moral perspective, but it shouldn't be expected to actually do anything. As such, it's less a good fight than good fussing about.

Re: The licensing program for MP3-related patents has been terminated

#90

Post by Loony2 »

ralfd wrote: post #79
mark-r wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing unique about software that makes it more likely to be developed independently by many inventors, the same happens often with hardware patents. And the same argument applies - the patent system as a whole impedes progress as much (or more?) than it advances it.

But the vast majority of US software patents are not patentable in Europe. If the US patent system would impede progress the effect should be a stronger European IT industry. I am doubtful of that though.

One still stay away from stuff that is patented in the US as a European company though, most European companies want to go to market in the US sooner or later.
Post reply on HN