Slashdot Mirror
Inventor Says Google Is Patenting His Public Domain Work (arstechnica.com)
Rob Riggs writes: Jarek Duda, the inventor of a compression technique called asymmetric numeral systems (ANS), dedicated the invention to the public domain. Since 2014, Facebook, Apple, and Google have all created software based on his breakthrough. Google is now trying to patent a video encoding scheme using the compression technique. The inventor is fighting Google in the European courts and has won a preliminary ruling. The fight's not over and Google is also seeking a patent with the USPTO. A Google spokesperson says 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," reports Ars Technica. "But Duda says he suggested the exact technique Google is trying to patent in a 2014 email exchange with Google engineers."
There's a lesson here. If you have a good idea, don't fucking tell Google about it! Don't put it on your android phone, don't discuss it in email, don't type more than you have to in the search bar.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
All inventions are built on the complex work of others. But you cannot preclude someone from inventing new things using your public domain technology.
Did you RTFS? He is claiming that Google's extensions are also documented prior art.
If he invented the machine screw, Google is claiming a patent for a machine screw used to hold together a bookcase.
There is no transformative act, simply a straightforward application in an expected field.
Patent examiners only look at prior patents for prior art. They don't have the time to look else where.
If you share an invention that isn't patented, someone will find it and apply for a patent. It it really is novel and nothing like it has been patented before it will be granted. They will then use it to sue everyone you shared the information with. Starting with the little guys who can't afford a decent lawyer.
It's extremely time consuming and expensive to invalidate a patent.
Then how the hell did it get anywhere near a patent office?
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
That is indeed a claim. It'll be interesting to see how a judge or jury decides after looking at the evidence.
First to file only protects against a competing patent. It does not prevent a patent from being invalidated because someone else invented it prior to disclosure,
Which is no longer novel or non obvious. Google should not be granted a patent. Even on the derivative use.
Have gnu, will travel.
Which is no longer novel or non obvious. Google should not be granted a patent. Even on the derivative use.
The problem is: How do you know some other company won't patent it, and the USPTO or courts won't allow it? If so, they can sue Google for using it.
If I were Google, I would file the patent. If it gets rejected, then there is a paper trail showing that the invention is not patentable.
care to explain the extensions to the patent then?
is it like "oh but we coded this up in a programming language and used it to encode a stream that has video inside it and thats a novel invention" ?
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
This is a good point. And many companies do this with no intention of milking obvious patents for profit. They just don't want some patent troll to cause them problems in the future.
Have gnu, will travel.
This is just not how they work. You can only patent concrete implementations.
(stolen from DaBum) I am dyslexia of borg - your ass will be laminated.
"with a computer"
"in 2018"
I'm sure he'll do fine in the courts. After all, Google doesn't really have the resources to fight this and they have a history of just rolling over in the face of adversity.
Prior art can only invalidate a patent if said prior art was itself patented.
That’s patently (pun intended) false. Prior art, patented or not, can be used to invalidate a patent. You can’t patent an existing invention, regardless of if you’re the first to file. If nothing else, that should be patently obvious (pun oh-so-intended) on account of the filing’s failure to pass the “non-obvious” test. If someone else has already invented it, the idea is obvious at that point, particularly so if the inventor verifiably disclosed it to you prior to your filing.
With AI
Ok... I just read up on ANS. It was quite an enlightening read and it's humorous because I remember thinking of a similar pattern when working with arithmetic coding 10 years back.
Here's the thing. The simplicity of ANS is elegant in its nature.
It's also extremely obvious in hindsight, though I'll be absolutely shocked if anyone in the courtroom except for Duda will understand that.
I would however say that because ANS is effectively so amazingly simple in its nature, if Duda's argument is to keep Google from patenting their extensions as opposed to trying to file for a patent himself later, I believe it would be much easier to suggest that the base math as well as the extension are non patentable under the pretense that they are not as much algorithms as opposed to mathematical discoveries or formulas.
There are some catches to this.
The probability distribution S may justify the math as an algorithm rather than as a formula.
But I would say otherwise that no part of this compression should be able to be patented under the same grounds that a Taylor series couldn't be patented. And while I haven't become an expert on the math yet for ANS, it reminds me of a generalized infinite sum problem.
So... call me crazy, but I'd imagine that pretty much anyone with a masters degree in some form of math should be able to act as an expert witness to simply say that this is a discovery and not an invention and therefore is not patentable.
Using blockchain
With a notch.
Naa, my bonus is tight.
Never happened. True story.
If you have nothing original to say you look up an article on Reddit or Arstechnicha or Techdirt and post to Slashdot.
Slashdot editors aren't pros. They are people like all of us and they say "Oh wow this is of interest" and publish it. Except that's not publishing. It's rehashing what someone else actually researched.
Lazy ass slashdot contributors -- if all you can do is rehash Reddit, Arstechnica, and Techdirt posts... please don't.
Lasdhot editors (lol) - if the "author" adds NOTHING ORIGINAL and is merely reposting, stop rewarding that.
I really love reading new stuff in Slashdot. This rehash stuff is not.
E
So far, this is following a 'Silicon Valley' plotline. Wonder if the compression technique was originally conceived in the same manner!
If we can google slashdot, maybe we can slashdot google.
Table-ized A.I.
That is complete bullshit. One of patent's requirement is, it CAN'T BE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. You spill the beans before you file for the patent, invalid. Someone has published the same idea before you, INVALID.
Is that the code used by a lot of meth users, or just that one?
How is there no story on the front page about this at the time of writing?
Because the /. editors are still trying to figure a way to make this a Hillary achievement.
You have no idea how expert witnesses work or selected. The real ussue is what can you do about it when you know hon much Google will spend on lawers.
They can just buy their justice. And if they fail, they buy the law that will prevent them from that happening in the future.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
So the US is in a first to file mode now and prior art doesn't mean a thing to invalidate a patent. Only a previous patent can.
Wow. You really need to read your own link, because that’s not at all what first-to-file means. From your linked article’s second paragraph:
[...] early disclosure under the FITF provisions is an absolute bar to later EPO patent.
Or, in English, an inventor who discloses their own invention before filing will never be able to patent that invention in Europe. Their own (non-patented) disclosure acts as prior art that invalidates the application.
First-to-file deals with who has the right to the patent, but most nations lack any form of grace period, so if the invention was already disclosed they will say that no one has the right, regardless of who did the disclosing and whether it was patented. Moreover, had you read your link, you’d have realized that the page spends quite a bit of time describing the distinctions between the first-inventor-to-file system that the US uses, which extends some grace to inventors who disclose their own inventions before filing, and the systems used in most of the rest of the world. Either way, however, filers aren’t protected from anyone else’s prior art.
"No, he can't. Not anymore. Ever again." God
It's also extremely obvious in hindsight, ...
Many genuine inventions are, this simply isn't relevant.
Just about anything that once appeared novel can be said to be "extremely obvious in hindsight".
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Let's see if we can find a pattern here:
1. Creating a general algorithm that can be applied to many different problems - No protection since math is neither patentable nor copyrightable.
2. Apply the algorithm to a specific problem - Patentable. 25 years of protection.
3. Writing a shitty almost off-topic post on slashdot in a thread about the algorithm - Copyright. Life + 70 years!
So, the less important the creative work is to society is, the more protection it gets.
We will soon be able to know if this was Google's intention because, if it is, they will not send their lawyers to defend their patent submission. However, the opposite appears to be the case: Google appears to be fighting the European finding that their patent is invalid.
Further, if Google was doing as you suggest I would think they would take a better PR stance...something along the lines of, "We believe that Duda's algorithm was non-patentable, but we have developed an extension to that which is patentable. However, we will be perfectly content if the USPTO or courts rule that we are mistaken."
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
yes, that can be expensive, at least in the US, but then he could have freely licensed it and have an easier time preventing other from patenting his idea. if it gets rejected as not patentable, that also helps prevent others from trying to patent his idea later since there would already be prior art.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
You left out AGW deniers. Don't worry, we still have our organic, anti-GMO cousins keeping up the good fight on the other side of the pond. It brings a tear to my eye to see us unite against science as a species.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
You're in Europe then? What are you doing posting on slash at that time? Didn't you hear the call to prayer?
So that would be all about "do not evil", or have I missed already this phrase becoming a meaningless slogan?
That is complete bullshit. One of patent's requirement is, it CAN'T BE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. You spill the beans before you file for the patent, invalid. Someone has published the same idea before you, INVALID.
The problem is, that USPTO by default grants patents, the extensive checks are expensive and they do not bother anymore - let the courts sort it out.
I guess I am not being fair here, I am pretty sure they check their own database of patents before.
So... call me crazy, but I'd imagine that pretty much anyone with a masters degree in some form of math should be able to act as an expert witness to simply say that this is a discovery and not an invention and therefore is not patentable.
The "discovered" versus "invented" is an old, philosophical debate in math. It's also true that pretty much anything in computing can be described in mathematical terms. Using this as your litmus test is bunk.
That said, I think patents in software have done far more harm than good, and the world would be better off if we removed legal monopolies on ideas within the software industry.
Google: Do Know Evil.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
That is complete bullshit. One of patent's requirement is, it CAN'T BE PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE. You spill the beans before you file for the patent, invalid. Someone has published the same idea before you, INVALID.
The problem is, that USPTO by default grants patents, the extensive checks are expensive and they do not bother anymore - let the courts sort it out.
This is false - the USPTO by default rejects patent applications.
I would think they would support the patentability of Duda's algorithm: if the algorithm isn't patentable, it undermines the patentability of their own application of it. If it is patentable then they need only prove their application is a sufficient modification to be worth patenting in its own right. LOTS of patents rely on other patented inventions - that's only an issue when it comes time to build things. And if it's built on something patentable but in the public domain, then they get the best of both worlds - the groundwork is patentable, but no license is necessary because it's in the public domain.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
So the US is in a first to file mode now and prior art doesn't mean a thing to invalidate a patent. Only a previous patent can.
Where did you get the idea from? Why do you think that prior art wouldn't be involved in invalidating a patent at all? In contrast, prior art has a huge part in invalidating both applications and granted patents.
I am guessing you meant prior art may not be used in patenting process because it is supposed to be voluntarily disclosed during the process by the applicant. However, examiners may still be able to discover other types of prior arts, which could result in rejecting the patent application. Also, applicants need to disclose non-patent literatures (articles, studies, research, etc.) related to the patent as well. As such, applicants can't simply ignore this type of prior art or their application may be rejected.
I suggest you to read this blog about prior art and granted patents. The author wrote it in a way that is much easier to understand for a layman.
Classic example of availability bias.
The vast majority of inventions are lost to the world because the person who thought it up (in a form that was by no means complete and practicable unto itself) failed to solicit enough outside involvement to fully move the idea forward.
It's simply human nature that ideas die when not shared around and chewed collectively.
This has a lot to do with fueling the lone genius myth, because only weirdos like Tesla (and he was very weird) have what it takes mentally and emotionally to go it alone.
Most clever monkeys who select your recommended door #A seriously overestimate their intestinal fortitude, wherewithal, and life course. Then we tremendously celebrate the few who prevail over these dim prospects. Probably in most cases, clever monkey is far better served by selecting door #B: ensconce the idea into the public domain as quickly, and vigorously, and thoroughly as possible. Definitely mention all the ways the idea might play out or become applied in a practical scenario.
If the idea seems to gain any kind of social or economic traction, patent some lucrative corner case. I don't counsel against withholding some narrow, special tricks. If you've invented anything substantial enough to be worth this conversation, you've probably accumulated in your (years worth of) preliminary thrashing more than few exceedingly narrow, special tricks.
So You Want To Write Your Own Language? — January 2014 by Walter Bright
No, I didn't look that up before writing the above. And it was on the first page of links that came up in a Google search "inventing a computer language difficulty".
Over the years, as the world has become ever more social, I've become increasingly convinced that this antisocial stiff-upper-lip door #A is tragic advice, 99 times out of 100.
If you're Walter Bright, YMMV. But Walter certainly wasn't reading Slashdot for prudent counsel. He was entirely of his own mind from the get go. The bright solitary lights tend to come fully equipped with a blanket-armour disdain for the rubes around them (sometimes graceful, sometimes polite, sometimes neither).
Moral of the story: if you need to ask, you can't afford it.
If the system is "first to file", but patent invalidation is based on "first to invent", then isn't the end result "first to invent"? Why have the extra complexity of a system where the granting criterion isn't the logical-not of the invalidation criterion?
Because if you are the first to invent, but did not file, you do not necessarily get a patent retroactively.
Best case not-filing-first: if the time expired to file (e.g., someone publishes or makes known your idea the clock starts ticking) it is likely nobody gets to patent it as the filer's patent would be invalid because of prior art (which is the same result as if the first to invent declines to patent the idea because they think it is "too" obvious).
Worst case: the first-to-file gets the patent even if they are not the first-to-invent because the first-to-invent can't show that their invention wasn't published or sold to the public before the priority date to be considered valid prior art.
The theory is that this first-to-file system give people incentive to file and get the idea out there quickly rather than hold on to ideas (via a first-to-invent priority date) and only attempt to patent them when other people stumble upon them. Because if you wait to file, you are risking some public disclosure which precede your first-to-file priority date and cause your patent application to be invalidated by your own prior art, or someone else will file and beat you to the punch.
no one cares about that... they will agree in all things, but secretly will do the opposite as both think they are smarter than the other one...
Higuita
This is actually a good thing he is doing. Mr. Duda could have patented his work himself and became financially very successful in a short period of time. But instead he is spending money to ensure the technology is available to everyone at no cost, simply improving everyone's products. He would much rather say I improved upon Huffman and walk away. Presumably not in a solid gold Lambo.
What's that even mean?!
Be Evil. Why not? Don't be evil is not in the code of ethics any more! (Was it ever?) Now Google is just dropping all pretense.
A Googler with modpoints slunk onto Slashdot?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
- Hayao Miyazaki