Google attempting to patent a compression technique in the public domain | Hacker News Reader

Google attempting to patent a compression technique in the public domain

techdirt.com

71 pointsandrepd18 comments

Discussed on HN about a month ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17277830 (212 comments)

They're using it to build codecs they want to remain open source and public, that means, because the patent system is fucking broken, they need to defensively patent literally everything they can possibly get surrounding the technology before a troll slips one through and starts harassing their codec users.

Because it'll happen, and the FUD will cause their partners to abandon plans to roll out the new codecs "until this legal cloud gets resolved".

It's not a matter of Google being evil, it's a matter of Google having lawyers who want to protect the intent of what they're doing.

Aside, can't they lobby for a better patent system?

Other parts of Google are probably quite happy with how the patent system works right now. It's just in this case where they're not interested in making any money off of that technology, but rather knowing that they won't have to pay for someone else's technology.

Google has been pushing for that a long while, but they've been pushing defensive patents and huge cross license agreements with everyone who will join. This is to keep the damage the patent system does contained as much as they can while the US government moves at it's glacial pace.

https://www.theverge.com/2012/10/9/3479492/google-software-p...

This is disinformation BS trying to spin the story around.

Yeah, google and everyone else should try to patent everything. But if the patent office says "this guy invented this first" then it is an a*hole/evil move to try to fight the little guy for the patent "because they are building codecs"

They should just concede, pay a symbolic fee, and that will even help the little guy fight patent trolls because google paying a fee for royalties is stronger than many legal teams a troll can afford.

instead, see this google quote from https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/06/inventor-says-go... "Google denies that it's trying to patent Duda's work. A Google spokesperson told Ars that Duda came up with a theoretical concept that isn't directly patentable, while Google's lawyers are seeking to patent a specific application of that theory that reflects additional work by Google's engineers." (how can someone even say that with a straight face?!)

meaning: they are outright stealing it on what they hope is a technicality. How would they like if IBM patented their video codecs, but in a video application, because the codec was only theoretical concept? They claim the patent system is broken but here Google is clearly being the evil actor and contributing to the problem more than anyone else.

In the end the true message is: "we [google] want everyone to believe they can use our free codecs without fear of all the patents we have on them, but if anyone makes the exact same offer, we will not trust them and try to steal the patents for ourselves"

Google no doubt considers it worthwhile to try exhausting every possible avenue to seize control of the patent before giving up. This is win/win if them if their stated intent of protecting their free codecs is to be believed. Either they end up with the patent or they nail down a rock solid precedent that everything in their codec is in the public domain. Either way they achieve their goal of not having to worry about having outside patents filed on the contents of their codecs.

Patent and copyright law put a lot of stock in the idea that the creator made efforts to protect their investment. If they didn't put this very effort in, their case would be hurt down the road.

This is a problem with the IP system, not a corporation being evil, this is a corporation working in a shit system.

And they can't steal something in the public domain. Like you said, someone is going to rally to fight the patent.

The past several years should be remembered as the time when Google has not only stopped "not being evil" but actually turned towards becoming your regular evil corp.

Let's do a short recapt:

1) started making Android more proprietary

2) stopped caring about end-to-end encryption

3) started wishing to become a military contractor

4) started abusing its monopoly power in certain markets (already convicted for one, another coming very soon)

5) stopped caring about free speech of its global users and banned anti-censorship tools

6) started wanting to go back to China (and compromise with whatever the new more dictatorial government is asking of them)

7) started hoarding bogus patents, just like Microsoft and IBM, and will likely soon start using them against competitors, too

8) started pretending to care about user privacy by quietly de-anonymizing users and tying their searches to their real names and IP addresses

9) stopped fighting for net neutrality, because now that's what suits it

10) started lobbying against privacy laws

These are just off the top of my head right now. I probably forgot a few. Google is no longer the bright-eyed company it used to be. Now it's all about exploiting users and entering whatever business it needs to enter or take whatever action it needs to take to increase that quarterly revenue.

How likely do people think it is that we'll see another divestiture a la Bell Telephone with Alphabet and Amazon?

I'm not going to make the case for divestiture, I don't really know what should be done. It seems to me that the places you'd divide these businesses are far fuzzier, and the argument that their free or cheap products are hurting consumers is more difficult to make, but that there is no real chance of a new competitor challenging them in the market and that liberties protected by our governments offline are increasingly offered at their pleasure online.

Short answer: Too long.

Phones were not high tech. Most elected offials (and those they appoint) can barely use a fax machine, let alone disect and legislate today's status quo.

Furthermore, if you see these companies as a proxy surveillance state - as anyone reasonable should - then the odds for divestiture approach zero.

I have to disagree with the “phone are not high-tech” part having worked in switching systems. Phones themselves are pretty crude implements but the backend has been very technologically advanced for the last century. Bell Labs earned their reputation properly.

Without applying a moral judgment ("is/n't high-tech") I think we can all agree that phone systems were less abstract than the systems Alphabet and Amazon are operating. The Bell system had clear, regional lines it could be broken up along, and that was a convenient handle for legislators to grab onto. It's not clear to me how you could go about breaking up Alphabet, and it must be very confusing for someone with more of a background in civics than software.

Thanks for clearing that up. I should have said "relatively low tech." Also, as you noted, Ma Bell was The Phone Company. I'm not so sure Google is that silo'ed.

People are just naive to attribute whatever human feelings to corporations.

It is all about the board and how to keep an impossible eternal yearly increase in profits, everything else is just good PR to help selling whatever helps achieving that goal.

All these recent news regarding patents are starting to worry me. Companies can patent every little idea even if they don’t plan on putting resources to such ideas and prevent small companies from ever taking off ?

Technically no, as ideas aren't patentable. But yes companies can pantent processes that they don't plan to actually produce. Nothing new, been going on since pantents we created

For some accountability, both patents list "inventor" Alexander Jay Converse

Reply on news.ycombinator.com