Patent infringement claim re: “Creating Shazam in Java” blogpost (2010)
royvanrijn.com
royvanrijn.com
Even if this topic covered was complex enough such that a patent was warranted, this is still disturbing as this accusation of patent infringement aims to directly halt the understanding of any of the innovations at play. Patents are an exclusive right granted in exchange for detailed public disclosure of the invention - to promote understanding and innovation is their purpose!
This wasn't angled towards mass production, just simply understanding and spreading knowledge - a fundamentally important concept in our knowledged based field.
[1]: Quote: "Also, as I'm sure you are aware, your blogpost may be viewed internationally. As a result, you may contribute to someone infringing our patents in any part of the world."
Yet the PTO and patent community refers to patents as "teachings". I continually heard that. "This patent 456 teaches that yadda yadda bing-bap-boom" and your very soul (well, professional career) is pillar-of-salt material if you even go look.
And yet, none of the really hard stuff seems to be patented. Or I could just be bitter. Or both :-)
"Let's see if someone's got prior art on (super whiz-bang technology)." Click, page, click . . .
"Wait, no--"
"Oh crap, I just read someone's hash table patent. Pass me another mind-wipe pill, would you?"
"Sigh. I'll have them hire another lawyer downstairs."
Which is what it's really about these days. Ka-ching, baby.
That was the purpose of original patent's plans, that everybody could replicate your machine or process with the information provided.
When you want a monopoly and also ban publishing the details of the algorithm or working examples, something wrong is happening.
It has gone too far, with people recommending other people NOT to read patents, because it will be bad for them on court.
I've read a bunch of software patents, with attorneys helping me out with language and advice, but this was under the guise of "How can we do a product like X, but not infringe on the related patents?" The patents in question were very broad, nearly without exception either ridiculously obvious or adoption of techniques that I found in textbooks and papers from conferences. It was almost like the company producing product X had bribed the PTO, it was that bad.
I believe that nearly every piece of software exceeding a few hundred lines of code infringes on someone's bullshit software or business methods patent. And of course, you can't go reading all the patents, so every software project is pre-screwed. Shipping software these days is a matter of ignoring the issue, crossing your fingers and hoping that a patent troll doesn't come knocking.
They collect a whole heap of fees for getting and maintaining a patent (http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/fees-and-payment...), and even claim a fee for revisiting a patent, but so far as I've been able to find, it doesn't cost them anything to actually invalidate one. It ought to cost them all the money they've taken so far, and then some on top, to provide them with more of an incentive to make sure the patent is correct.
In fact, the article in question is actually based on a different article, which is based on a paper published by one of the Shazam authors: http://www.ee.columbia.edu/~dpwe/papers/Wang03-shazam.pdf.
IMO, the outrage here is the tone-deaf PR of the CTO.
It's technically amazing. Shaman still amazes me with its speed and accuracy. But in the end, it's simple (advanced) numerical analysis.
I'd much rather their implementation be held close to the vest as a trade secret, where stealing source code is illegal, but if I produce similar functionality on my own via my own work and time investment, I don't need to fear that someone has government sponsored exclusivity on that pattern of mathematical analysis.
This is a very prevalent misconception around here, so I will address it again. Saying "software is mathematics" is about as correct as saying "machines are physics". (Note that you cannot patent laws of physics either.)
1. The claims don't cover "use FFT, get key features". It actually claims something different but quite broadly.
2. Having some background in signal processing, I can tell you it's never that simple. Many years ago, I once took on a similar project that looked like "oh, a simple frequency-domain cross-correlation should suffice" and it turned into a multi-month exercise that ended without a satisfactory solution. I'm guessing the right solution would have looked a lot like this patent.
Taking this use case, for instance: What's a "key feature" that works best for your use case? You do an FFT, fine. What next? What do you hash? How do you hash it in a way to get something useful? You have a ton of information: phase, frequency, amplitude for an N-point FFT, and you have M such chunks of FFTs. How do you use these M x N points to solve your problem? Can you come up with something (without reading the patent, of course) that works reasonably well in a reasonably short time frame?
Here's a wakeup call: Justice has nothing to do with any of this, and the only logic behind it is the golden rule, i.e that those who have the gold make the rules. This is nothing new. Satisfying greed of the powerful by invoking terror on the less powerful is a very common occurrence throughout human history. The only things that change in different times and places are the implementations of this rule.
Sorry to be so cynical about this, and I'd be delighted if you prove me wrong. It's ironic how patents today exist to mostly serve the exact opposite of their original intent.
This just sounds like pure bullying from third-rate "lawyers".