Recognizing this adds legitimacy to software patents. Don't. There have been free and open source MP3 decoders for many years now.
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.
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.
My general thought is: you should, on a regular basis, feel at least a little bit of pain due to your opinions. If you don't then your opinion is probably worthless to society.
I've reread this sentence a few times... and it is actually quite deeper that it first seemed on a more superficial read. Thanks a lot for your comment.
That seems to get a lot of incentives right. Publishers have to pay artists decent royalties, and proprietary file formats can't be used to suppress competition. What would go wrong? Apart from the fact that this would have to be enacted over the cold, dead bodies of a lot of music company executives: that's a feature, not a bug.
MP3 is not an encrypted codec, the format itself is quite open and doesn't place any real restrictions on redistributing music -- in fact, most of the original music sharing sites like Napster traded exclusively in MP3. The use of MP3 has no bearing on copyright or music piracy.
The real issue is that software developers had to pay a royalty to Fraunhofer to distribute copies of MP3 players or encoders. That made it impossible to incorporate MP3 into a free (as in speech) OS like GNU/Linux.
There's real a higher-order issue, too. Why did anyone want GNU to incorporate an MP3 player in the first place? There is no law of physics that requires songs to be encoded as MP3.
Dude, in 2006 ALL MUSIC was mp3.
And as we know, due to Nyquist, N Congressmembers can at most be solving N/2 things at any given point in time.
There is radio (online and in the ether), there are alternative platforms (e.g., Bandcamp), concerts and other live venues, (second hand) physical media (e.g., CDs or vinyl), open access music, etcetera.
On top of all that there is the big middle finger of 'piracy' if you are so inclined. For many this is a morally acceptable alternative to a rotten system, for others it may remain an imponderable transgression of law and or ethics — either way, it is a viable alternative in addition to the above.
Support indie artists and buy music in MP3, FLAC, Apple Lossless, AAC, Ogg Vorbis, WAV or AIFF.
I'd love to be able to buy DRM-free 24/96 lossless versions of all the music I actually want but buying used CDs for under $2 apiece seems like a reasonable compromise to me. For the moment if I can't find particular albums on CD in the used market I either buy them from eBay sellers or do without. The remaining chain retail vendors for CDs such as Best Buy have a pretty hopelessly bad selection these days.
Patent-encumbered audio codecs are popular at this point because of network effects, not technical superiority. There are many ways to reduce the network effect, even without changing music buying habits. For example If you're a website designer, include a royalty-free audio format as one of your <audio> srcs. As a bonus, you'll save some bandwidth.
It seems kind of odd to do this so late in the patents' life, though. I understand the general theory behind a last-minute cash grab, but you generally can't take "last-minute" quite this literally. Why wait so long?
If only the known MP3 patents filed by December 1992 are considered, then MP3 decoding has been patent-free in the US since 22 September 2015 [...] If the longest-running patent mentioned in the aforementioned references is taken as a measure, then the MP3 technology became patent-free in the United States on 16 April 2017 [...].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing.2C_ownership_and...
Wikipedia also says (unless I'm missing something) that all the MP3 patents have already expired everywhere else too. If this is true, then Fraunhofer is ending their licensing program just because they don't want to bother getting people to pay for something they can now legally have for free.
Support Bandcamp. Support Databeats (storefront for many drum 'n' bass labels). Hell, support Beatport and Juno, even though they insist on huge markups for WAV/FLAC.
Somebody at apple decided AAC was better than MP3 because of it has better licensing for distributors, they could have gone further to consider codecs which had liberal licensing towards codec developers/manufacturers.
In fact the decision would have been made back in 2001 or earlier, given that the original iPod released in 2001 supported AAC decoding.
(The music labels also forced Apple to encrypt everything, therefore there was no incentive to use an open format. Had they used encrypted Vorbis, that would have been seen as a giant middle finger to open source.)
They have now switched to 256k, where all lossy codecs are largely equivalent.
Simple: don't give any money to Apple for music in patented or DRMed formats, or to anyone else who tries to sell music that way. If you really want, you can write them to tell them why you're not buying their crap.
Companies get away with this behavior because consumers let them, and reward them with their money. You can make the argument that consumers don't have enough power for necessities like internet service (because of local/regional monopolies or oligopolies), but this just isn't true for luxury goods and services, which is exactly what the Apple music store is. You don't need downloaded music, there are other providers out there, and you can always buy it on CD (frequently for less) and rip it yourself into whatever format you prefer, like Vorbis, Opus, or FLAC.
I don't seriously believe the corps would actually change their ways to benefit the customer -- but this is my rebellion against their business model and it's an exercise of the small power I have.
Plus I don't break the law. I simply actively don't feed them money in their scheme which I feel are very unethical and greedy.
When looking for a head unit in my car, I specifically made sure I had something that could play FLAC and oggs (and mp3s .. and aac .. my music collection is a mix of legacy formats).
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...
The general-purpose computer to single-purpose computer transformation cracks me up (and makes it obvious that the law doesn't necessarily have any relationship with reality): "by loading this program, a computer able to do many different things becomes a computer capable of doing a specific thing."
This isn't true in many cases after the Supreme Court decision Alice v. CLS Bank in 2014. Now we have a rule more like that in Europe, where some software is patent-eligible if it's sufficiently technical (e.g., something like RSA, or better cache management) and not patent eligible if it's not technical (e.g, CRUD apps, or new views on a database).
When I said "court approved" I meant Federal Circuit, as in Alappat ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_re_Alappat#Majority_opinion ): "We have held that such programming creates a new machine, because a general purpose computer in effect becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to perform particular functions pursuant to instructions from program software."
On the one hand, several Supreme Court decisions appear to leave less room for software patents. On the other hand, I don't think the Supreme Court has an overall goal in mind. I believe the problem comes from the fact that the law prohibits patenting natural laws, but allows patenting the application of natural laws. It's hard to distinguish between those two ideas; and I believe impossible to distinguish between them when it comes to software.
This is the beauty of intellectual property experts: they can reverse a very root concept, by changing few commas, and over-interpreting.
TL;DR: Software patents are forbidden (especially in Europe) "as such". It means that if you attempt to patent the "linked list" in software programming, this will be refused. But you can patent a "method of linking a set of abstract data together, using a numerical identifier as gathering medium". This is not rephrasing: what you are attempting to patent is NOT software - you can have a set of paper sheets, with a number on top of them, and form a linked set of data (printer documents). You could ALSO have a linked list in a computer program. But what you are attempting to patent is a more general concept, that CAN be represented as a piece of software. Of course, what you REALLY want to patent is the later.
Yes, yes, this is fraud. Legal fraud. Move along, nothing to see.
Since TPP is dead, the IP-dependent industries may start looking for a new venue, as they appear to have been putting a lot of eggs in that particular basket. But there may be a short-term reprieve for countries not currently toeing the US party line.
No, that is not the case.
http://www.ajpark.com/ip-central/news-articles/2016/05/new-z...
What the Zeds have done is really not so different from what the Supreme Court decided in Enfish:
claims purporting to improve the functioning of the
computer itself, or improving an existing technological
process might not succumb to the abstract idea exception
http://www.iam-media.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=96d4aeaf-dedf-4a...
"Effectively, if the invention lies purely in software, then it is considered unpatentable. However, as outlined in the explanatory note of the SOP, patents will still be able to be granted for inventions that
a) make use of computer programs where the contribution lies outside of the computer, or
b) affect the computer but is not dependent on the type of data being processed or the particular application being used.
Essentially embedded software is patentable where it improves the operation of hardware, along with software that improves the way a computer runs. Again, this is consistent with the UK."
Also Zeds is a really strange name for us. Correct term is Kiwis or Rugby Overlords :)
Note: as to whether any particular tactic like this stands up in court or not, you'll find out if you fight it in court. You and your huge heap of cash, that is. Don't have a huge heap of cash? Then the question is moot, isn't it, peasant?
One noteworthy exception, which plays a much bigger role in slower-moving industries, is that an exact copy of something sold over more time than the pendency of any patent in existence (mostly less than 23-24 years) is clear. But the larger point holds. Comparing patent claims to products and prior art is hard and expensive.
That applies to MP3 (and all of MPEG and other 'licensed' systems) as well. See for example Sisvel's MP3 related patents that led to raids on MP3 players at the Cebit fair.
Or make your patent-dependent development OSS.
now it is first to file. I can just patent all those formats and troll everyone until a court finally decides to consider prior art correctly when someone finally bites the bullet on a defense instead of deal.
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 mathematical formulae" is in itself a great argument.
Should the jacquard loom have been granted a patent?
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!"
To the original objection that you can't patent math, I think some countries do disallow software patents, don't know if it's that reason or something else. But if they can disallow because math, shouldn't they disallow all patents because physics?
German patent law for example has had the term "Technizität" as a neccessary property for a patent to be valid.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technizit%C3%A4t
Money quote from the BGH (German Supreme Court): "Als patentierbar anzusehen ist eine Lehre zum planmäßigen Handeln unter Einsatz beherrschbarer Naturkräfte zur Erreichung eines kausal übersehbaren Erfolges." (GTrans:"To be considered patentable is a doctrine of planned action using controllable natural forces to achieve a causally overlookable success." :) )
i.e. You gotta use physics in your patent.
I have been coming back to this time and again, and today I still see it as the least shitty definition in regard to what should be patentable and what shouldn't.
Other national patent offices in Europe have used similar demarcation properties and it had served them quite well...until the degradation of patent standards started here as well around the turn of the millenium, with the first act being the EPO starting to issue software patents in rather blatant violation of its mandate.
Patents exist to promote novel applications of physics and chemistry, but do not forbid use of the fundamental laws, and should not forbid use of fundamental mathematical or algorithmic processes.
If you can violate a patent in your mind, it shouldn't be granted.
Only because we've decided so. In the United States, for example, you can copyright the law.
In Europe at least maths can't be patented but applications of maths often can, just like software can't be patented as such but if it has real-world technical effect it can.
A new rocket launch trajectory may be "just maths" but if it reduces fuel consumption then it arguably isn't "just maths" and so will probably gain a patent.
This approach seems compatible with the quid pro quo intention of patents.
A patent on an invention that many people would easily develop independently of one another should not, it is argued, be granted since this impedes development. [1]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent#Obviousness
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 it took me to build mine.
The overwhelming majority of the time, Software patents grant someone a monopoly, in exchange for them sharing nothing remotely useful to society. Looking at that software patent will not save another engineer any time whatsoever, in cloning my product.
With that kind of patent, I am using the legal system to enrich myself, without giving anything back.
Most don't, though.
Something like MP3 or h265 represent nontrivial investments in information theory, and I'm basically okay with patents granting a (temporary) exclusive licensing period in exchange for sharing the practical code and theoretical work.
Patenting something like "one click ordering" or "facilitating inter-personal communication by sending audio over the internet" is just ridiculous.
In your software-patentless world, why would a genius choose to work in software as opposed to another field inventing patentable tangible objects where he or she will be monetarily rewarded for it and able to make a living? Don't say you are already paid by your employer to program. Someone inventing physical objects would probably also be already paid by their employer to work. This brings us back to why would a genius choose to work in a field that won't reward them for their genius?
If you don't want to reveal your design, you could always keep it a trade secret.
If you're a genius working on software, you shouldn't have trouble filing a patent that would be useful to another engineer, once it expires. For some reason, though, people instead patent stupid shit like 'a software system that does _______.' They don't actually explain how to build a software system that does _____, they don't give anything back to society, and are instead leeching of the largess of our legal system.
If you want protection for your invention, tell us how it works. It's a pretty simple concept.
1. Trolls use them to seek rent from independent creations.
2. Companies that are not purely trolls but need a vector to attack another company sometimes use them in the same way trolls do.
3. Entities that actually make software use them as a deterrent against patent claims.
Nobody actually depends on them for the profitability of software they've made, and nobody actually benefits from the disclosures in expired patents. Software patents are purely weapons. The hypothetical genius you're talking about would not be harmed at all if they went away, and would be better off because they'd be spared the vicissitudes of patent trolls' attention.
But I don't see that the two descriptions are different in practice. Patents incentivize publicly releasing an invention instead of keeping it a trade secret (or letting it languish). The problem this is solving is that ideas aren't valued by the market, only products. But society benefits from ideas independent of products. And so the solution is a system to put value on ideas, ergo patents. This meshes with my alternate description.
>To be clear, I didn't say that's what patents are for (i.e. their purpose), but what they correct for, i.e. what they do in practice.
This is pretty much what is happening with speech recognition these days among other things.
No need to worry about opensource, or the fragility of patents, when you keep your technology a secret.
Another approach is to use trade secrets - you encrypt parts of your application - reducing performance - enabling you to sue anyone who decompiles it in order to replicate, or indeed interface with it.
Patents would actually seem the least of these evils, if they were only less broken.
Also, PageRank clearly doesn't need a patent. Google's done just fine against competitors that have ripped off their technique.
How do you do that?
The first person to think of the concept of "self-driving car" gets the patent? That will just lead to a flood of patents on things that don't exist yet -- basically a patent troll's dream.
Perhaps the first company to build a working prototype? What happens to all the other companies that almost have a working prototype -- do they now have to sit on the sidelines for 10 years?
How do you even know what a "working prototype" is in that scenario? Is it acceptable if it is just capable of driving on straight roads during sunny days with no other cars or people around?
I think patents on specific, narrow pieces can make sense: for example a laser-based 3D vision system, or a specific algorithm that identifies people about to walk in front of the car (even that is tough, because there's a thousands of very distinct approaches to that problem).
Patenting the entire system (the "self-driving car") makes about as much sense as say, Herman Miller patenting the concept of a wheeled office chair. They can patent elements of their lift mechanism, specific wheel designs, or arm adjustments, but not the concept of combining wheels and a place to sit.
Copyrights are sufficient. You shouldn't be able to tell someone they can't use a certain software algorithm in their own program, in a different language, in a different domain. That stifles innovation.
Thankfully, software patents are unenforcable in most of the world and willfully ignored by large parts of it.
Do not underestimate the importance of software patents. It is wise to build a defensive patent portfolio.
I know this is no fun for people who are ideologically opposed to software patents, but as in most competitions, if the ruleset allows this advantage and you refuse to exploit it, you will lose to someone else who is less squeamish. There is absolutely a real lowest-common denominator effect that applies here.
If you want your startup to be acquired, you need something that a potential acquirer can't easily circumvent; that means a brand with user loyalty or intellectual property. Anything else in the software realm, Google et al could easily replicate it within a reasonable timeframe by assigning a small team to do so.
An artillery of your own ambiguous or general patents can also prevent lawsuits from others.
These are the rules of the game today, and if we want to play the game, we need to use this rule to our advantage. If we hate the rule, we need to find an effective way to petition Congress to change it. This usually means demonstrating how the current law is a clear risk for the only stakeholders Congress cares about: massive companies (particularly, major employers within their constituencies).
A lot of stuff that should be legally risky for big companies isn't, because the legal system is so convoluted and expensive, that they know only another well-capitalized company could successfully pursue a suit under such grounds. Since the big companies are generally advantaged by not "poking the bear" and instead accepting one another in a type of stasis, they avoid filing potential landmark cases that would dispense the legal ambiguity and strip the advantage against upstarts away from both parties.
"Don't hate the player; hate the game".
There are two fundamental discussion schemes about software patents: (1) can we patent something that can be described as a mathematical concept and stuff. and (2) why would you want to patent software in the first place.
The first discussion is tricky. Comparing algorithms to mathematics, having patents that can be expressed through mechanical OR software, etc.
The second discussion is IMHO getting back to basics: Why do you want patent in the first place ? Why, in our free market universe, do you want to give to a restricted number of actors a monopoly ? Why not competition ? After all, if your neighbor decide to put a lemonade stand in front of your garden, and even if you didn't thought about this idea before, you are free to imitate/copy/replicate its business. Patents are inherently anti-free market.
To answer to this, you need to get back in time, and understand the reasons that led our ancestors to create patents: some technological inventions were extremely expensive, hard to copy, and companies were spending an unreasonable amount of money in them, say, to re-invent steam engine. This led to this bizarre exception, at the very condition that it would be limited in time, and really have a positive impact on the market (ie. NOT for the companies filling patents as sole incentive)
In software, there is no reason to allow patents. Don't get me wrong - a very very tiny fraction of software could be seen as needing patents (mpeg algorithms are often cited, probably engine injection algorithms too). But most of algorithms can be replicated by a bunch of engineers in an office. This is neither expensive, nor requiring specific provisions.
TL;DR: Software industry does not absolutely need patents, and because patents are very strong anti-competitive provisions, it should not be allowed in this industry unless there is a clear reason.
There are no such newest and greatest algorithms that are private and covered by patents. This is an illusion.
So, again, why do you think the patent is the driving factor to making money off software?
Not all software is just shopping baskets, and website glue logic.