Hacker News Reader

Comment by internet2000 | Hacker News Reader

internet2000

If they'd open source it, users would be able to compile for their own devices just fine. There are fully open alternatives that Apple doesn't mind, like https://github.com/anthonya1999/GoodNight

I know where they're coming from, but all this wolf crying is getting annoying. I wouldn't mind if they came clear and said "we can't open source f.lux because we want to pressure Apple into letting us monetize it someday."

View on HN

From the f.lux EULA, which I'm fairly certain no one has ever read through (evidently, because there hasn't been a backlash over it):

  You may not (and agree not to, and not authorize or enable others to), directly or indirectly: 
  (a) copy, distribute, redistribute, rent, lease, mirror, timeshare, operate a service bureau, or otherwise use for the benefit of a third party, the Software; 
  (b) disassemble, decompile, attempt to discover the source code or structure, sequence and organization of, or otherwise reverse engineer, the Software (except to the extent applicable law prohibits restrictions on reverse engineering); 
  (c) remove any proprietary notices from the Software; or 
  (d) bundle the Software with any third party software, product or service. 
  You understand that Company may modify or discontinue offering the Software at any time. 
  For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing restrictions apply to any company or corporate entity (or its affiliates or agents acting on its behalf) (each, an “Entity”) and 
  no Entity shall download or install the Software for the purposes of mirroring or distributing it to its employees or otherwise.

They also write at the bottom of their homepage that "f.lux is patent pending." Next to an offer of collaboration with cell phone, display, and lighting system manufacturers. Which is code for "We want money for this."

Why do people support this software? Especially on HN, which should know better. This is the kind of software that wants to be free, and could be made better through open source.

If you think this is ridiculous (as I do), Redshift[1] is a free, open-source alternative for at least Linux. On Android, ChainFire's CF.lumen[2] at least does not make a patent claim on filtering your display, and allows you to use "Pro Mode" without paying (you simply have to enable "Freeloading" from the main menu).

1: http://jonls.dk/redshift/

2: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=eu.chainfire.l...

How is this different from a standard closed-source EULA?

What's wrong with that? It's commercial software, and they are nice enough to let you use a copy for free. They aren't (AFAIK) doing anything remotely malicious, like grabbing user data or bundling malware. It doesn't add advertising to your computer.

(I'm not sure if f.lux does any update checking, which some people might count as unacceptable)

It's the "patent pending" part that sucks. They're trying to patent the idea of changing your video card's CLUT (color look-up table) to reduce eye strain, which is a fairly obvious and trivial thing to do once you know that blue light affects melatonin production.

Yep. They care so much about public helath that no one is allowed to be healthier with paying them. Classy move.

Can't you level that complaint at all pharma firms though too?

At least if it doesn't encourage those behind f.lux to continue beneficial activities (promoting the benefit of redshifted screen use) then it should encourage others to develop health focussed apps in the hope of getting paid?

FWIW I use redshift.

Pharma patents are less abstract. They patent a product, not the idea of making a product.

Changing a pallete was a solved problem. "Doing something when it's a time" was a solved problem. But if you change a CLUT "becuase it's a time" your software belongs to someone else. It seems like the only innvoation here is observing a need discovered by health researchers, and patenting the existing components of the solution before someone else does.

I'm would find it a bit suprising if someone on HN really thought that changing a CLUT because of the time is so hard that no one could figure out how without the promise of a government granted monopoly on the idea.

I will hasten to add that actually implementing, marketing, and maintaining a real life multi-platform proprietary solution sounds hard, in the sense of being plenty of work, and I think lots of people would gladly pay for that service.

The question we should be asking is: where is the public good in the government intervening to reduce competition in this space by creating a new abstract property right?

>Pharma patents are less abstract. They patent a product, not the idea of making a product. //

All patents are for ideas, in order to acquire a patent you have to give details of how to perform it - how to create a product/device or how to work a system/method to use the idea - but patents are not given for products per se.

I'm not that familiar with pharma patents but the few I've seen were quite abstract, they make claims that cover many different chemicals rather than one "product" (this when attached to that group; this when attached to some other group; etc.).

That said I was specifically responding to the [paraphrasing] "you have to pay them to be healthier if they patent the medically beneficial method/technique/device/drug" - which is true for all companies holding healthcare patents that they don't give free licenses on.

WRT the particular product you do it a disservice - yes changing things at a time were known, yes changing colour palettes were known but there is synergy in the idea of removing blue light elements from a monitor gradually as dusk passes in order to prevent the negative effects of blue light on people and the method of changing a CLUT to achieve this end forms more than just a colocation of known ideas.

One argument in this sort of situation has always been quite powerful to me - if it was so obvious then it would have been done, the need was known, the individual concepts were available. Almost every idea seems obvious post hoc.

>> in order to acquire a patent you have to give details of how to perform it

Software patents don't have to include code, and generally are not useful to a skilled practitioner in actually creating software. The are written in legalese by persons incentivized to seek as boad a claim as possible, while revealing as little usefully information as possible.

>> if it was so obvious then it would have been done

By this reasoning every new product should be protected by a monopoly. Sometimes how to do something is obvious, but no one wanted to do it before.

The question should be whether treating every new situation as an oportunity for government sponsored property grab is good for society, or just the first guy to file.

A huge number software developers get sued because they wrote software that violated a patent they had never heard of for a "business method" type of task, but "with a computer". There are hundreds of thousands of software patents, so it's not possible to read them all before selling software to make sure one hasn't infringed, assuming one could actually be sure without simply defending a trial. The reason there are so many lawsuites is because it WAS obvious, and lots of people did the same thing without ever hearing of the patent untill they got sued.

I'm guessing that your not a programmer who's read any software patents. I have never met one who has that did not agree that the contents of software patents were obfuscated and worthless for creating a storehouse of usefull knowlegde that benefits society, what is the constituionally mandated purpose of patents in the first place.

>It's the "patent pending" part that sucks. They're trying to patent the idea of changing your video card's CLUT (color look-up table) to reduce eye strain, which is a fairly obvious and trivial thing to do once you know that blue light affects melatonin production.

On the other hand, since nobody else has done it (or patented it yet), real life proves that it's not that "obvious".

Like the "egg of Columbus" some thing are obvious in retrospect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_of_Columbus

This is also true (also called hindsight bias).

There are only two real incentives that we, as a society, have to grant patent protection. One is to ensure that inventors have a fair chance to recoup their R&D investment. The other is to offer an alternative to trade secrets, where innovative insights are hidden from the rest of us, potentially forever, by a single proprietor.

Obviously, neither of these applies here. There is absolutely no reason for us to grant patent protection to f.lux. This is so "patently" obvious that the burden of proof falls on those who would argue otherwise.

>There are only two real incentives that we, as a society, have to grant patent protection. One is to ensure that inventors have a fair chance to recoup their R&D investment. The other is to offer an alternative to trade secrets, where the innovative methods are locked up, potentially forever, by a single proprietor. Obviously, neither of these applies here.

I actually disagree with both -- let R&D happen by public research (e.g. universities) that competes for funds based on results, and then makes said results available for everybody (at least in the same country who did the paying).

But that said, I don't see why the people who did this "obviously" don't need a "fair chance to recoup their R&D investment". Does it say anywhere that the R&D investment must be huge? Because that's not the case with tons of patents -- some are just accidental inventions, like the fabled 3M's post-it notes.

>There is absolutely no reason for us to grant patent protection to f.lux. The burden of proof falls on those who would argue otherwise.

Actually if the patent office DOES grant them a patent, then the burden on proof falls on you.

But that said, I don't see why the people who did this "obviously" don't need a "fair chance to recoup their R&D investment". Does it say anywhere that the R&D investment must be huge?

Rather than haggling over what constitutes a "huge" investment, let's generalize the question a bit. True or false: we'd be better off if everything that could be patented under the present USPTO rules was patented.

If your answer is "true," we're done here.

If your answer is "false," then you agree with me that the current criteria for patent grants are inappropriate and counterproductive.

Because that's not the case with tons of patents -- some are just accidental inventions, like the fabled 3M's post-it notes.

Correct, and we need to ask what we got in return for allowing 3M to patent Post-It notes. If something is that trivial and that inexpensive to develop, then there's no need to incentivize it. We already have an institution called a "market" that's well-suited to sort out the winners and losers.

Obvious or not is a bit of a red herring. The key test should be whether somebody would have done the same thing without a patent. If they would have, then a patent is unnecessary - the government shouldn't be in the business of granting arbitrary monopolies, only those monopolies that specifically promote something, for example, research. If a patent is granted for a thing that would have been done anyway, then that patent is a kind of a dead loss for society.

In the case of flux I think it's relatively clear that it would have been done without a patent, but maybe some people would disagree.

I said "obvious and trivial thing to do once you know that blue light affects melatonin production." In the past people did other hacks with CLUTs (like some early 3D games baking gamma correction into the CLUT so that proper linear lighting could be displayed without an expensive postprocessing pass). If you were aware of the blue light effect (I'm not a sleep scientist, I don't know how long they've been aware of it) and had some low-level graphics programming knowledge, I don't think it would require great leaps to come up with this solution. It's just that no one else was interested in or aware of this problem.

Regardless of whether it was obvious or not, I hate the idea of extremely simple solutions being locked up behind patents, keeping the world today worse for the sake of hypothetical future innovations. It seems especially scummy the way they're trumpeting over social media about the harm that blue light causes while quietly trying to profit over an extremely simple solution to it. More than likely they know that Apple will never allow this on their app store because of the potential for abuse the necessary APIs would provide, and their end game is hoping the angry mobs will convince Apple to implement this as an official feature (and thus, pay them royalties). And more than likely, Apple would have implemented this years ago, had f.lux been an open source student research program with no patent applications attached.

>I said "obvious and trivial thing to do once you know that blue light affects melatonin production."

That doesn't change my argument. That too was known for ages, and still no light changing apps for it like flux (with the exception of a Linux app which I think came later).

>That too was known for ages, and still no light changing apps for it like flux

How is Joseph Programmer von Notasleepscientist supposed to know that a blue-light dimming filter is something that he might want before he sees the effect in action? I'll give some credit to f.lux for popularizing the idea, but once the idea is out there, there are only two ways you can implement it: postprocessing in software, or postprocessing in the CLUT. You wouldn't need to know anything about how f.lux works to come up with one of them yourself, once you are aware of the idea.

This fact is in neuroscience and psychology text books. It has been well known for quite a while. That said, it's true that others haven't done this prior to f.lux coming out. From a business model perspective, they are making a utility that could have been bundled into the OS. It's a small feature, not a whole business, unless they can gain exclusive use of their invention.

Whether this patent protection incentive was necessary for them to try to get their product out there in the marketplace is a harder question to answer. Certainly, they have chosen a business model that relies on getting the public familiar with the technology and then licensing it to manufacturers. It does seem to me that many fewer people would know about flux if they were charging for it initially, but it also doesn't seem like a huge leap forward tech wise, though it may provide a lot of value. I'm kind of on the fence.

EDIT: I did a little digging. While I happened to have known about this fact for a long time, and am pretty sure it was in my textbooks as of around 2005 or 2006, it seems this may have been discovered around 2001. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11487664

In fact, a long felt and unmet need in the field would serve as a secondary indicia of non-obviousness.

Actually, the stuff about blue light and melatonin in humans was discovered by biologists in the 90s. They get all the credit here. Obvious applications of that knowledge would not normally be patentable, but the US patent office is pretty much batshit insane at this point.

Somebody else has already done it. https://github.com/jonls/redshift has been by go-to for a few years now. It's my suspicion that Jon has no intention of patenting the idea.

I was starting to feel confused about the anti-commercial sentiment I was seeing in here, noting that this is a forum created by one of the most successful venture capital firms in technology.

But, then I saw your comment. I can get on board with this comment. The fact that they're attempting to patent something so trivial puts them right up there with the likes of Intellectual Ventures, etc., IMHO.

Yes, HN is fundamentally more anti-intellectual than it is anti-commercial.

By chance, did you mean "anti-intellectual property"?

If it's so obvious, how come nobody else does it?

Also, to be clear, I doubt they're getting a patent on "changing your video card's CLUT (color look-up table) to reduce eye strain" but rather on the specific method they use for doing so.

How else would you reduce the amount of blue light emitted by a monitor using a CLUT except by changing it to reduce the amount of blue light emitted?

The original stated intent of f.lux was to reduce eye strain by matching the colour temperature of the screen to your surroundings. The idea about circadian light came later, it was probably their users that came up with that.

... which would hurt my head except that I have concluded that software patents are just straight up insane. There is no point in trying to figure anything out with respect to them.

Well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Apple are nice enough to let you use iOS under a closed system model. Same basic principle is at work here: you are restricted in what you can do with the software!

Why would people find update checking unacceptable?

It's a form of monitoring. Some update checks run whenever you start the program, so in the case of a program like f.lux, the developer gets to see exactly when you turn on and use your computer. Or, the update check might run periodically, in which case it's a constant survey of who in the world is running your code. That alone is a vast amount of information.

Also, many programs send a lot of details about your computer to the developer. They might send back hardware details, MAC addresses, lists of other running programs, and so on. All of which may seem innocuous but could still include personal information.

That's a great point.

You didn't say that you necessarily disagree with that monitoring, if you do, how do you feel about using Google Chrome, with it's near-constant communication with Google servers, looking for updates and alike?

I don't use chrome!

Not to mention this is a relatively simple thing to implement I think redshift for linux (linked above as [1]) is ~ 10k lines of C code and maybe a few hundred of python-qt.

10k lines of C doesn't mean "simple".

Perhaps not in this case, but even an 1K line of C program could need tons of research to be written, extravagant math, etc.

There can be 1K programs that are orders of magnitude more complex to write than 100K programs -- e.g. cryptography vs a game engine.

I can tell you for sure that adjusting the color temp. of your monitor requires no extravagant math.

That's why I wrote: "Perhaps not in this case".

It "wants to be free"? Why does this particular software want to be more free than a word processor?

I meant that in terms of patent rights. Would you patent a word processor?

Easier to read version of the EULA (without using preformatted text):

You may not (and agree not to, and not authorize or enable others to), directly or indirectly:

(a) copy, distribute, redistribute, rent, lease, mirror, timeshare, operate a service bureau, or otherwise use for the benefit of a third party, the Software;

(b) disassemble, decompile, attempt to discover the source code or structure, sequence and organization of, or otherwise reverse engineer, the Software (except to the extent applicable law prohibits restrictions on reverse engineering);

(d) bundle the Software with any third party software, product or service. You understand that Company may modify or discontinue offering the Software at any time. For the avoidance of doubt, the foregoing restrictions apply to any company or corporate entity (or its affiliates or agents acting on its behalf) (each, an “Entity”) and no Entity shall download or install the Software for the purposes of mirroring or distributing it to its employees or otherwise.

> (b) disassemble, decompile, attempt to discover the source code or structure, sequence and organization of, or otherwise reverse engineer, the Software (except to the extent applicable law prohibits restrictions on reverse engineering);

This is already completely null and void in multiple jurisdictions. I don’t think these developers have even consulted a lawyer while writing their EULA.

Not that I read EULAs often, but I think that's quite a common clause. They do talk about exceptions in some jurisdictions at the end.

A bit off-topic, but what I do find hilarious are websites EULAs, when you're not even asked to agree before using the service. Then you somehow discover them in a hidden page and they state "by using this site, you agree with our terms". That seems ludicrous, since you can't agree with a contract that wasn't presented to you. Anyone knows if there was ever any case regarding these?

Actually, there was a case with online EULAs where the user had to check a box to agree with them, and even those were found to be legally null and void for any non-standard clauses, as you can’t expect a user who wants to buy something online to read a 40 page contract.

Well, the same would apply to pretty much any non-enterprise software then. Who's gonna read an EULA to run a program? Who's gonna pay for software, later find the EULA is abusive and stop using their paid product/service?

It's a laughing joke. No one reads them, no one expects them to be read, and still they're everywhere.

>Why do people support this software?

Same reason we use Photoshop, Pro Tools, etc: because we like/want the functionality. Build an open source alternative as good, and we'll use that.

I could kinda see your point of view in your other posts ITT (though I disagree), but what? The entire point of this discussion is that their patent application is discouraging other people from creating "competitors" (if you can call them that).

That's the latter part "build an open source alternative as good" that might be problematic due to the patent (then again, if it was obvious somebody should have built it BEFORE they did and thus have prior art).

But the first part, "because we like/want the functionality" still holds whether there's a patent or not. If there's no alternative, either because nobody bothered, or because the software is patented, then people will still use it, regardless if it's proprietary or not.

Photoshop, the other example I gave, also has tons of patents, proudly listed on their "About" windows.

The incentives align to make me want to support f.lux here, I think. Not because I want f.lux (the product) to win, but because having Flux (the commercial organization) in the market means that they'll "hunger" for that money and use it to push Apple to open the gamma API.

Having done so, though, anyone can then use that gamma API. If there's no special advantage to f.lux's patented implementation, then some other (maybe FOSS, maybe not) gamma-shifting app will win the market. If f.lux has especially clever secret sauce in how and when exactly they gamma-shift, then f.lux will win the market.

The real question: should someone be able to clone f.lux's (latitude, time, and option-dependent) gamma curve formula without paying f.lux? Is a gamma curve formula patentable? I don't really know. I do know that it's easy enough to create your own that probably works nearly as well without it being f.lux's formula.

How dare they try to sell what they made!

> If they'd open source it, users would be able to compile for their own devices just fine.

"Just download this repo & compile for your own device" really isn't a solution for most people. There's a lot of people who would love to use f.lux on their devices, but wouldn't have a clue how to compile something with Xcode. Even offering the binary to sideload is a poor solution - what about people who don't own a Mac to connect their phones to?

For the maximum number of people to benefit from this, whether it's f.lux or GoodNight or another solution, it needs to be built into the OS (like Samsung has with Reading Mode) or on the App Store behind a big easy button that says "Get". That's what f.lux is campaigning for.

Exactly. There's a linux version too, but I won't use this because it's closed, not because it isn't free as in beer. I don't like breaking my OS with crappy vendor packages that only work on half the versions of half the distros.

Also, the monetization strategy suggests an ulterior motive that makes it hard for me to accept the idea that this is important for my health, or public health, at face value.

http://jonls.dk/redshift/ is a good open source alternative to f.lux

How does making it open source helps 95% of the iPhone owners out there? Outside of this tech ivory tower, most people don't even understand what a compiler does.

Not every piece of software has to be usable to the 100% of world's population.

Not a single piece of software is usable to 100% of the population.

Next to all web-based software is even only usable by 4.28% of the global population: the US population. You need for many things an US credit card, or a .edu email, etc.

I don't have an opinion on this particular case, but FOSS benefits people even when they don't code. I mean, who has read a significant portion of the Linux kernel? Close to no one. How many have beneffited from it being GPL? Millions, who get access to a kernel that is developed by a great deal of companies with interest in it. That wouldnt happen if it was freeware only, with no rights to modify or share.

Should f.lux go FOSS? That's up to them and their business model. Is their patent crappy? Perhaps so. Although Ill say, if it is so simple to do what they do, why dont we have a bunch of similar apps, legal or not?

The purpose of the app goes against Apple's interest.

I'm OK with no apps being on the App Store that will affect the appearance of other apps. The app is, in a way, a partial rewrite of the operating system. Of course Apple doesn't want apps that alter the OS in the store.

The developers should open their code while the OS maker keeps its system tightly closed and restrictive. Very coherent argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com