Tandberg attempts to patent x264 open source algorithm(x264dev.multimedia.cx)
x264dev.multimedia.cx
Tandberg attempts to patent x264 open source algorithm
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/589
13 comments
I'll see what I can do.
I work for TANDBERG (now a part of Cisco) and I've dropped a note to Lars, the "inventor" in the patent. I certainly would like to hear the other side of the story and will share it if I get it.
What "other side" is there, if it's a step-by-step description of x264?
Well apparently one side is the mob
If the implementation was indeed taken, it might be a dangerous mishap/black eye against their community reputation. It appears that Tandberg relies heavily on Opensource for at least one of their other products. Gstreamer and Tandberg video: http://gstconf.ubicast.tv/videos/case-study-tandberg-and-gst...
It appears (given they were invited to a gstreamer conference) that they have been getting along with that project so maybe this was a one-of mistake?
edit: make myself clearer
edit: make myself clearer
"35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent.
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless
(a)the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent,
or ...
(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"
Even if Tandberg were granted a patent because the USPTO missed the information provided in the post, it would not stand in court.
Such information should be communicated to the USPTO to have them kill the application during examination.
Case closed.
Even if Tandberg were granted a patent because the USPTO missed the information provided in the post, it would not stand in court.
Such information should be communicated to the USPTO to have them kill the application during examination.
Case closed.
Were it granted, the patent would still be a threat, even if it wouldn't hold in court. Organizations that can't afford the legal fees to retaliate against a patent suit are often forced to settle.
Norwegian news site digi.no picked up this story and have a statement from Tandberg. Tandberg claims that their invention is different from what's in x264 and that they invented it before x264 the referred code.
Google translated link: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&h...
Google translated link: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&h...
It's unfortunate this wasn't noticed seven weeks ago. The application was published August 7. The public comment period runs for two months afterward.
That is freaking bizarre, curious about the follow up on this. I think someone is about to loos his job
No need - lying on a patent application is perjury.
And it's a federal court - remember not to drop the soap in the shower!
And it's a federal court - remember not to drop the soap in the shower!
This waste of carbon isn't worthy of scrubbing Knuth's toilet, and I'm all for drumming him out of tech for life. But our neglect of security in prisons isn't funny.
But software patents are bad so this one guy deserves all the blame! Not his bosses who pressured him to do it, not the system that set up a framework for claiming ownership of ideas... no, this is all his fault, and it's worse than murder! Death penalty!!!
</sarcasm>
</sarcasm>
Thank you, I hadn't noticed that Tandberg was not just some guy but a corporation laying the groundwork to engage in racketeering ("nice product you've got there...")
This guy is named as the inventor on the patent application:
http://no.linkedin.com/pub/lars-petter-endresen/0/6ab/390
Another prove that software patents should be abolished.
By similar logic, copyright should be abolished because someone plagiarised their final English paper?
People will always abuse any system, but that doesn't mean the system should be taken away from everyone else. I don't like software patents, but this is not a software patent issue. It's an "intellectual dishonesty" issue -- taking credit for someone else's work.
People will always abuse any system, but that doesn't mean the system should be taken away from everyone else. I don't like software patents, but this is not a software patent issue. It's an "intellectual dishonesty" issue -- taking credit for someone else's work.
The problem is that it was worth Tandberg's effort to put together and submit this fraudulent patent application. Enough applications like this get granted, and later go unchallenged or get upheld, that Tandberg had a reasonable expectation that they would get a patent to extort money out of somebody or scare competitors out of competing with them.
Software patents need to be harder to get, easier to overturn, and there need to be steep incentives to not submit invalid applications.
Software patents need to be harder to get, easier to overturn, and there need to be steep incentives to not submit invalid applications.
We need USPTO to somehow bear consequences for the harm they're doing to the industry. Reviewed applications are counted towards the "production" of an examiner but approvals later overturned by a court are not counted against them. As long as they only have incentive to rubber-stamp basically anything or risk dismissal, that's what they'll do.
USPTO seems overwhelmed. I would rather see penalties for patent owners where their ability to create new patents is slowed or revoked if any of the patents they own are invalidated.
I suspect that the USPTO is more interesting in collecting fees than they are in vetting patent applications.
Eventually, copyright will die off completely. It's just a matter of when.
When we have sci-fi nanoreplicators that can copy luxury (flying) cars, food, etc., all scarcity will be artificial.
Alternatively, when we have very convincing VR, everyone will be able to experience what he or she wants to as much as he or she wants to. There won't be anything to trade because you can't give someone something they can't already get. Strong general AI will fill in for everything.
Our puny mammalian brains with their limited sensory inputs will be entertained by not-very-advanced technology that eventually becomes effectively free. It doesn't even take that much fidelity to fool us -- think of how unconvincing dreams are after you wake up. There's seemingly some credulity switch that gets flipped which makes us believe something to be reality without really questioning it. Switch that on while awake and World of Warcraft is probably more than good enough.
Incidentally, I noticed that asking yourself the question, "how did I get here?" ala Inception is really annoying when you're awake. It's difficult to question your reality when you subjectively feel it to be true.
My awake existence is mostly in one place staring at a monitor. I almost never do that when I dream, I'm "physically" doing something completely unrelated.
When we have sci-fi nanoreplicators that can copy luxury (flying) cars, food, etc., all scarcity will be artificial.
Alternatively, when we have very convincing VR, everyone will be able to experience what he or she wants to as much as he or she wants to. There won't be anything to trade because you can't give someone something they can't already get. Strong general AI will fill in for everything.
Our puny mammalian brains with their limited sensory inputs will be entertained by not-very-advanced technology that eventually becomes effectively free. It doesn't even take that much fidelity to fool us -- think of how unconvincing dreams are after you wake up. There's seemingly some credulity switch that gets flipped which makes us believe something to be reality without really questioning it. Switch that on while awake and World of Warcraft is probably more than good enough.
Incidentally, I noticed that asking yourself the question, "how did I get here?" ala Inception is really annoying when you're awake. It's difficult to question your reality when you subjectively feel it to be true.
My awake existence is mostly in one place staring at a monitor. I almost never do that when I dream, I'm "physically" doing something completely unrelated.
Intellectual property will become even more of a problem in a post scarcity society. Those that hold the IP will not want to give it up just because it's value is no longer in the physical creation.
The music recording industry is effectively already becoming a post scarcity industry, and look how unwilling they are to give up their copyrights. Industries will cling on to things like rights to reproduce, rights to distribute etc. Don't expect these problems to go away because of some sci-fi future tech.
The music recording industry is effectively already becoming a post scarcity industry, and look how unwilling they are to give up their copyrights. Industries will cling on to things like rights to reproduce, rights to distribute etc. Don't expect these problems to go away because of some sci-fi future tech.
I don't think an AI Justin Bieber is that far off.
AIs can create pop music in your virtual world if you like that sort of thing. All the other AIs will be talking about it, so you won't need some central source of anything in order to have common ground with people in your reality.
It will be fine if random permutations lead to people in your virtual reality listening to "Yeah, Girl" instead of "Girl, Yeah" or "All Right Girl".
Movies won't be very important when you can interactively experience anything you want. Climb K2 but without the risk of permanent death. Movies will just be a Machinima subset of the interactive simulation if you still want them.
AIs can create pop music in your virtual world if you like that sort of thing. All the other AIs will be talking about it, so you won't need some central source of anything in order to have common ground with people in your reality.
It will be fine if random permutations lead to people in your virtual reality listening to "Yeah, Girl" instead of "Girl, Yeah" or "All Right Girl".
Movies won't be very important when you can interactively experience anything you want. Climb K2 but without the risk of permanent death. Movies will just be a Machinima subset of the interactive simulation if you still want them.
Even if copyright was hypothetically abolished, it doesn't make this "intellectual dishonesty" any less intellectually dishonest. In that case, it would be up to the school to penalize that - which is exactly what happens most of the time anyway.
The existence of the patent system encourages people to commit such "intellectual dishonesty" by providing a monopolistic and monetary incentive for doing it. There's a difference between a system that is abused, and a system that's fundamentally asking for such abuse.
The existence of the patent system encourages people to commit such "intellectual dishonesty" by providing a monopolistic and monetary incentive for doing it. There's a difference between a system that is abused, and a system that's fundamentally asking for such abuse.
I'm sorry, but the patent system didn't place a gun at this guy's head and force him to make the application.
If he definitely chose to do a dishonest thing, perhaps he should be punished accordingly.
If he definitely chose to do a dishonest thing, perhaps he should be punished accordingly.
The difference is that once your plagiarized paper is accepted, you can't go around threatening the other students with F's on their papers if they don't pay you off.
I dislike the patent system, and I also dislike dishonesty - but could it have been possible that the person accused might have stumbled across the same solution independently?
If the person came up with the solution on his own, wouldn't he patent it in full including the missing piece that the author checked in only later? Without that piece, the solution does not work.
No, it works -- that was just an extra optimization.
Yes, but it strains credibility that he'd come up with it just after a similar commit was made to x264.
I would imagine that this patent could be easily invalidated using prior art argument, the only down side is all the wasted effort and legal fees to fight the battle.
The norwegian link clearly states that they have documented their algorithm 7 months before it was released from x264. If this is true, there is definately nothing to see here...
They _claim_ to have documented it internally. Garrett-Glaser has publicly documented his case. Any blind faith in the accuracy of Tandberg's response is not shared by me.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." - Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution
This is a pandering quote which everyone already knows and not really a useful comment at all.
I don't see how the quote was relevant given that there is already plenty of evidence that will defeat the patent application, but it seems like very few people actually know the constitutional basis for intellectual property laws.
Even here on HN, I've seen posts from people who think patents are intended as a reward for inventors, rather than an incentive to invent. Under US law, inventors and writers do not automatically deserve exclusive rights - those rights are granted only as a means to encourage progress.
Even here on HN, I've seen posts from people who think patents are intended as a reward for inventors, rather than an incentive to invent. Under US law, inventors and writers do not automatically deserve exclusive rights - those rights are granted only as a means to encourage progress.
This is a frank response to a pandering quote which serves to let everybody know that you are a good comment watchdog and won't just ignore bullshit.
Given this, could one use that clause as a defense if sued by these "people"?
[deleted]
Given that there was the possibility of a 'three-strikes' provision for copyright abusers in ACTA, there should at least be a discussion about penalties for patent owners that makes it so the owner can no longer file any patents if a certain number of patents are invalidated.
I love it - but the patent-anything crew (IBM, Intel, etc.) would throw all their money at that. Maybe at least a percentage of total patents after the first 10 invalid ones, or something similar?
Cisco HR peeps have been quite active in the UK developer community recruiting for Tandberg recently, I'll forward this to one of them to see if can get some attention.