Hacker News Reader

Comment by drakaal | Hacker News Reader

I helped fight Acacia on the Streaming video patent that threatened to kill porn on the Internet.

There are definitely trolls out there. Acacia was one of them.

At the same time there are organizations that are viewed as trolls that have legit claims to enforce their IP.

The MPEGLA that collects royalties for h.264 is a good example. Most people who use VLC never pay their royalty. They should. Part of the reason we don't get better video codecs is because the royalties don't get paid and so there isn't reason to do the research into improvements.

Yes, there is WebM, no it is not free of patent issues, but that is another subject, not for this thread. The point of this is that there are many times a patent is needed, and sending collection letters is necessary.

View on HN

A codec is software. Software is mathematical formulae in code form. Math, and therefore software, should never be patentable.

Molecules are mathematical formulas. Machines are just simple physical devices governed by math. What matters is the R&D and protecting the R&D and incentive to do the research.

With all due respect: No molecule is a mathematical formula. Mathematical formulas - on the other hand - are.

Patents on software are a patent on describing how to use a machine. Almost every single component part of the machine has surely been patented at some point.

How many times do we need to patent the use of a computer and/or networks before we're done with this nonsense?

>A patent is a monopoly in the same way all property rights are monopolies: you get the exclusive right to use something.

After I get my series of patents on the use of a computer on a Ferris wheel. And the use of a smartphone on a Ferris Wheel. And networking on a Ferris wheel. And downloading on a Ferris Wheel. And a solution for predicting the position of a person on a Ferris wheel based on other people on that Ferris wheel with known positions...

Hardly. You clearly don't understand what a Codec is. It is not simply "math" anymore than Google Search is just "math" or a physics engine for a game is "just math".

Justify your piracy with better arguments.

MPEGLA collect royalties from device makers and chip-makers. Good luck to them if they want to collect royalties from every VLC user. I can think of nothing which kills the demand for H.264 decoding hardware faster.

EDIT: This is as an aside to the fact that I'm pretty sure they don't have an enforceable claim to kill x264.

MPEG LA also collects for software implementations Who do you think Microsoft Pays for the h.264 decoder in Windows.

X264 is derived from the SMPTE Sample code that is provided by the standards body. It is Open Source but it is not Free.

Functionally indistinguishable - x264 don't sell it. x265 was created precisely so vendors could sell it.

Google Search is just math, and a physics engine for a game is just math. Both of those things also tend to be covered by trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets, not patents.

Your argument is terrible. Justify your aggression with better arguments.

Physics is totally math.

Google keeps their algorithm secret, so the patent system isn't even helping there. And pagerank, the academic paper describing a mathematical algorithm? Don't even joke about that not being math. PR(A) = (1-d) + d (PR(T1)/L(T1) + ... + PR(Tn)/L(Tn))

Other way round: we could have public research into codecs, but you can't make incremental improvement because of the licensing requirements.

Incremental improvements would break a Standard. We'd have HTML5 for Video. You'd have to upgrade your Bluray player every 2 months, and Disney Discs wouldn't Work In Sony Players.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com