If it was for the public good, the patent would be filed via a non-profit that Google can't control.
I assumed it to mean that Jarek Duda had joined Google, but it is Jarek speaking in the thread.
I follow the data compression sphere a bit. It really seems like Google is making a mistake here. From a patent perspective, since ANS is already "prior art", it seems like it doesn't deserve a patent.
Presumably Google wants to avoid receiving a misinformed lawsuit about ANS that they would then have to fight to prove that an ANS patent shouldn't be valid. Still, not putting Jarek in the loop (and like he mentions, not engaging with his university more) is wrong.
The best takeaway:
if anybody is also afraid of Google having a very general patent for using ANS (both tANS and rANS) in image and video compression and can explain why the above claims are just a natural mix of known methods:
go to: https://efs.uspto.gov/efile/portal/efs-unregistered
select "Existing application/patent" and then "Third-Party Preissuance Submission under 37 CFR 1.290"
as "Application number" enter: 15/370840
"Confirmation number": 5111
The title of the post was changed. It used to read that they were patenting for the public good.
This is not correct. In fact, as far as i know, the code was already open sourced, and the patent would end up released as part of AV1/etc anyway.
"If it was for the public good, the patent would be filed via a non-profit that Google can't control."
It'll be released that way, so who cares who files and pays the fees?
You really don't want non-profits filing patents. Really. This is pretty much the most horrible thing i can think of. It's infinitely easier to keep them from going bad (Example: MPEG-LA) if you can make their corporate bylaws, etc, prevent them from filing patents.
>This is pretty much the most horrible thing i can think of.
>It's infinitely easier to keep them from going bad (Example:
>MPEG-LA) if you can make their corporate bylaws, etc,
>prevent them from filing patents.
? Non-profits are corporations. They have by-laws. They also have several advantages over for-profits in the case of dissolution; eg, you can set up a non-profit so that the IP they hold is not simply sold to the highest bidder.
FTR, Xiph.Org is a registered 501(c)3 non-profit, and we hold patents.
Non-profits can in fact, "go bad" the same as any other corporation.
If they can only hold patents, and not file them, you at least cut off a source of that happening.
Is it possible to work around? So is anything in the legal world.
But it makes for a nice barrier.
Couldn't they just publish the techniques by some other means? E.g. some scientific journal. I mean, a publication is strong evidence of prior art.
If you patent something, and don't have a licensing fee or anything like that, I would imagine that it would deter some patent trolls from getting a false patent and suing people using that technique. Fighting in court costs a lot of money for people like me (and probably you) so anything that keeps me out of court is a good thing.
If the patent system was working correctly there would be no need such a thing, either something is patented or it isn't. If it isn't it shouldn't be possible for a third party to patent it post-facto since there's already prior art. At least, that's the spirit of it as far as I'm aware.
There is a tiny number of patents they've pledged not to sue offensively for: https://www.google.com/patents/opnpledge/patents/
The fact that they have not pledged most of the rest indicates that someone there is maintaining their ability to offensively sue in the future.
If you've noticed something about most patent trolls, they're has-beens. When you can't compete, you sue on patents. Right now, as one of the most valuable companies on the planet with multiple products that are monopolies, obviously that does not describe Google today.
But it does describe Google at some date in the future. And when Google's profits are crashing, and they're trying to figure out how to stay in business, some business exec is going to realize that treasure trove of patents can solve all their problems...
We don't know what's the rationale here. For all we know, Google might even be OK if the patent is not granted to them, as long as it isn't to anyone else, either. The radio silence is to be expected when lawyercats are involved, unfortunately.
[Ex-Google employee, not a lawyer, etc.]
But every single major IEEE, ETSI, IETF, etc. standard ends up with 10 different companies getting patents on exactly the same shit.
What do you mean by "give up his rights"? Whether he can allow other people to use the patented idea?
> and invalidate the patent?
What do you mean by "invalidate"? Whether they can show the patent office prior art to their own patent and ask them to for that reason invalidate the patent?
> Or can a copyright holder put his work into the public domain?
That depends on the jurisdiction.
My understanding is that someone needs to hold a patent, be it a non-profit or commercial entity. What I wonder is if someone who could file a patent or already holds a patent for an idea could put this idea into the public domain without anybody holding a patent? Does this make sense?
Well, yeah? I mean, the whole definition of a patent is that it gives someone a monopoly over an idea. A patent without someone holding it would be as sensible a concept as a bank account without a holder. A bank account documents that money is owed to someone. If there is noone who it's owed to, then there isn't a bank account. And if there is noone who holds the monopoly ... then there is no monopoly?
> What I wonder is if someone who could file a patent or already holds a patent for an idea could put this idea into the public domain without anybody holding a patent?
Depends on what you mean by "public domain". If you own the patent, you get to decide who gets to use the patented idea. Obviously, nothing prevents you from deciding that everyone is allowed to use the idea without any further conditions. That you get to decide that is the whole point of the system.