I don't think patents are inherently evil, however they certainly can be used for evil.
But The basic idea is sound. If you invent a novel mechanism and publish it the government will grant you exclusive economic exploitation rights to that mechanism for the next 25 years. After that it is now fair game.
It is an attempt to solve the real problem that it is much harder to be first than second, the guy in first place has to spend all that time and effort to develop the thing, and the guy in second just has to copy the guy in first. To rectify this social injustice the patent system was developed, where the government would grant and enforce economic exploitation rights of the mechanism to the inventor.
The problem often stems from the Patent Offices getting caught flat-footed with new tech. When the patent officers don't know enough about the field they are reviewing it is easy for things which are "obvious to experts in the field" or "overly broad" to slip thru and cause major headaches for everyone.
It does not help that things fundamental to the new tech, even though they took real effort to develop, are now exactly those items that are now "obvious to experts in the field" and "overly broad" And then have fun trying to distinguish real fundamentals from items in the form of (existing invention "with a computer") Or whatever the hot new tech of the day is.
A good example(old enough to not matter any more) is the how the Wright brothers invented something fundamentally new, their patent was on how to control an airplane, The problem is, once you see it, it is obvious how to control an airplane. Birds do it, Why should such an simple thing be protected? But conversely. This is a discipline that took the Wrights many years of hard and meticulous work to figure out. Is it morally correct to say "No, we are not going to grant you exploitation rights to this thing you invested so much time and effort developing"?
> the guy in first place has to spend all that time and effort to develop the thing
The problem is that patenting something doesn't require one to put a lot of time and effort - just to produce few pages of text and diagrams. So it might be sufficient for somebody to have a general idea.
> But The basic idea is sound. If you invent a novel mechanism and publish it the government will grant you exclusive economic exploitation rights to that mechanism for the next 25 years. After that it is now fair game.
No. it is no way shape and form, good. 25 years is eternity in tech. The impact of the tech is not all that much related to investment either. You are just stifling any competition in the market
> It is an attempt to solve the real problem that it is much harder to be first than second, the guy in first place has to spend all that time and effort to develop the thing, and the guy in second just has to copy the guy in first. To rectify this social injustice the patent system was developed, where the government would grant and enforce economic exploitation rights of the mechanism to the inventor.
It has completely wrong structure for that. First, the duration. Second, the way you can patent vague idea, not actual concrete implementation. It is not used to stop competition from just copying your product, it is stopping anyone in market to compete.
Software patents may be what saves the field. Currently copyright as an IP protection for software has been rendered near meaningless by AI. If I can get one AI to reverse engineer Photoshop, and another to implement the produced spec, I have a copyright-clean version of Photoshop.
Patents protect the idea of a particular program. And in the post-AI world, it's the idea that holds the value, not the implementation. Implementations are cheap now.
Another alternative to preventing the entire software market from collapsing is to revive the Whelan v. Jaslow copyright standard, under which the abstract "structure, sequence, and organization" of a program is eligible for copyright. But programmers would bristle at that almost as much as robust patent protection for software. Until, that is, the money comes in with mouths to feed and mortgages to pay...
Most large open-source projects banning AI contributions have been doing it for social and technical reasons, not legal.
As for the copyright infringement angle, it’s well and truly too late for that to be a meaningful problem, socially and politically. It’s easily in “too big to fail” territory now—any striking down of the “fair use” exemption claim would kill the entire industry dead, because every one of them would have to throw away all their models and synthetic data and start again, and that’s geopolitically untenable. They moved too fast for judiciary to regulate them, and I think the window of opportunity for legislature to regulate them closed no later than 2024.
You are wrong about why open-source projects are banning AI contributions. While vibe-coded slop is obviously a pain, many are banning even their own well-known contributors from using A.I to write large parts of code due to legal concerns.
I'm sure the patent trolls care a lot about the "industry." It is still the early days but eventually they will come on knocking.
A patent was meant to give a solo genius a way to treat their idea as something tangible, at a time when logistics was much slower and the world revolved around the physical.
Maybe they try to develop it themselves, maybe they sell the idea to a big corporation that has the resources to implement it. Either way, genius begets profit, and the world gets genius ideas... in theory anyway.
But a genuine idea back then needed a long time frame to actually do something with it. 20 years seemed reasonable at the time.
The world is less logistically constrained these days. Make it 5 years, no renewals.
A patent is meant to encourage people and companies to share the details of their inventions, instead of keeping them secret. In return the inventors get protection for a certain number of years.
>The modern purposes of patents seem to have shifted a long way from that
I'm not sure if that's true, or if it's more that 1) we hear more about the more egregious stuff and/or 2) something was lost in translation with that stated purpose when the world went digital.
That, and we're also past the need for geniuses to keep grinding in a cave, in hopes of landing a patent.
People are far more empowered today, many more can work near the bleeding edge, and funding can be arranged in different ways than holding on to a patent.
Solo geniuses don't have the money to operate the patent system, it doesn't work for them. All they can do is sell for cheap or else get bogged down. When they invent as an employee they outright don't own it. That's a moral outrage. And that's what the patent system is to individuals.
Good luck publishing in Costa Rica. When you're not privileged you're likely to be on the losing end. So what use is it? Better keep your invention a secret, like most do, and let the next generation display themselves as the inventors. That's the alternate reality the system actually supports.
The whole system should be scrapped. Publishing is easy nowadays, just do it. Then you'd have the rights of you can prove you're the first. Anyone that wants to use can/must give you a known amount of royalties, depending on whether the invention is a unique enabler of a class of products, or just an optimization. Which it will become over time. If you don't want that, keep it a secret and build company around it.
"Solo geniuses don't have the money to operate the patent system"
Very true, a friend patented a design, that he had developed over a decade, and tried to license it to established players in the astronomy field. They looked at his pitch and just implemented it anyway. Without buckets of money there's little a solo inventor can do.
Our demand for perfectionism prevent any progress. I would consider shortening patent length that can help everyone. With all the improvements in the world we could afford shorter window.
I would recommend that great academic (but very digest) book titled "Against Intellectual Monopoly" to understand why the answer is most certainly "no" (though, their answser is closer to "yes" for pharmacetical patents).
I think of them as legalised marijuana. It is not good for you, but if it were made illegal, there will be criminal organisations providing the service. Without patents, we would be mired in NDAs dictating which company can talk to which other company about what technology, and quite possibly several open-source developers passing away in mysterious circumstances.
So I see it as unavoidable evil. The patent system makes it lawful evil as opposed to chaotic evil, which is strictly speaking an improvement.
Patents are a deal made between innovators and governments. I especially dislike this term "intellectual property" because it tries to turn that deal into a right. That feels benign because the little guy innovator depends on rights. But what really happens is that it turns patents into a sacred object. They're not.
While it would be a bad idea to do so, mere legislation can set the terms of a patent to any length down to zero or out to forever. It's not a right. It's a deal meant to be beneficial to society in return for the government enforcing a limited term monopoly.
They're a nice idea poorly executed. If they would last something like 5 years instead of 20, and only be assignable to individuals, not companies, and non-transferable, they could work as intended.
I don't know anything about pharma, but having worked in tech and had my share of patent lawyer meetings, it sure doesn't seem like software patents are necessary at all. That said, a patent system has a lot of free parameters that you can dial to reduce the cost. At the silly limit, if patents were only good for 24 hours, the cost to society would be ~zero (though also the benefit would be zero), so it's hard to call that "evil" in the sense of definitely causing a lot of harm. The question becomes whether/when you can set all the free parameters to something worth having.
I think this was the final patent on it that was valid anywhere, so now the status changes from "someone has a patent globally and we need to consider this" to "no one has a patent." If you're distributing something globally, even one market that still has the patent might stop you from default shipping a driver touching on it, or you might have to worry about court orders at least. It's hard to avoid jurisdictions on the open web.
Right, but I thought it matters only if you sell something globally. Linux is distributed for free, so the burden of patent compliance is on the user, isn't it?
Distributing something for free doesn't mean you don't have patent obligations if you do it in the country that patent is valid in. On top of that, many corporations do sell their distribution of Linux.
I thought those were just the closed source drivers from Nvidia, Intel, and so on. But those vendors might have licenses for this kind of patent, especially Nvidia?
Presumably it's an "international patent" filed in Brazil.
You don't have to file your patent in every jurisdiction. There have been treaties for recognising each others intellectual property rights since the late 19th century and Brazil has been part of these from the start.
So, I recently learned about this from my company's patent lawyers. Patents only give protection in countries where they are filed. So, you can not create a product in Brazil that violates a Brazilian patent. And, you cannot import a product into Brazil that violates that patent. But, there is nothing stopping you from making that product in the US and selling it to Americans. The whole treaty business essentially means that most countries have roughly equivalent laws and you can file the same patent in multiple countries if you are willing to pay the fees. What countries you pay to file in then becomes a commercial decision.
By your company's patent lawyers' logic then, any American drug or technical doodad patented in America is totally legal to be knocked off in Majarashtra or Taiwan or Guangzhong. Pretty sure if you tried pulling this you would be disappointed with the outcome. Not that it is not done (obviously), but that it (pretty sure) isn't legal.
If it hasn't also been patented in India or Taiwan or China, that is 100% correct (but they can't ship it to the US). However, it would be typical to patent in all of those countries at the same time.
I'm going to trust a patent lawyer over someone on the internet. And so should you, if this situation applies to you, don't trust me: get a lawyer.
You are talking about the Paris Convention. The parent poster was talking about the Patent Law Treaty. The Paris Convention made it easier to file in other member countries after filing in your home country, but you still have to file in each country you wish to be covered in. The much newer Patent Law Treaty allows for "international" patents, which only need to be filed once to be applicable in all member countries.
As I understand it (and IANAL), an international patent makes it a lot easier to file in multiple countries (single application as you say), but you still have to pay the fee to each country you want protection in.
I didn't realize that, thanks! After looking at Wikipedia for a bit it seems there are two phases under the PCT, an international phase that is sort of like the main part of a patent application, and then the national phase that actually creates the patents in each region/nation based on the first phase.
So as I understand it you don't have to do the full process everywhere, but you have to actively register everywhere where you want protections. But there is not automatism to the second step...
With emphasis on shit. Really. I can relate to the rose-tinted memories, but DivX and XviD both encode to MPEG-4 ASP which has a lot of shortcomings that manifestly result in the infamous sludgy green-purple banding artefacts of the time, no matter how good the chosen encoder is. XviD is the better of those two MPEG-4 ASP encoders, but it simply does not look good in an absolute sense, just in a relative sense compared to the alternatives of the era.
There's no such thing as a codec that looks good or bad in an absolute sense. Codecs boil down to a quality versus bitrate curve. And starving them always looks bad.
While the most common kind of artifact will shift between standards, significant artifacts are fundamentally bitrate issues or encoder bugs.
If you gave DVD levels of bits-per-pixel to MPEG-4 ASP you could get something that looks nearly perfect.
> There's no such thing as a codec that looks good or bad in an absolute sense.
There are plenty of examples of both awful codecs (software; encoders) and of digital audio/video standards (e.g. Vorbis and MPEG-4 ASP) suffering from material limits.
> If you gave DVD levels of bits-per-pixel to MPEG-4 ASP you could get something that looks nearly perfect.
No. Not even if the source is encoded by XviD. Not all problems can be solved by throwing higher bitrate at it. The ASP only supports 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, which is the largest of several shortcomings contributing to the limited quality you can achieve with ASP video material.
MPEG-4 SStP is a different matter, but that's not what DivX and XviD encodes.
I should have added "general purpose". I know there are restrained encoders for specific situations. Can you list a few of your examples for video? And isn't vorbis more than enough at max bitrate?
4:2:0 is just fine for video. It is not a heavy penalty. It's OK for you to be rough about this. More seriously, if it's good enough for bluray and UHD bluray then it's fine.
Yeah sure, a few example that spring to mind would be...
Poor encoder: FAAC/FAAC2, the first open-source encoder for AAC audio, produce terrible audio no matter how much bitrate you let it work with. The AAC standard itself facilitates crisp audio quality at low bitrates, as heard with e.g. Apple's Core Audio AAC encoder or Nero AAC.
Poor encoder: Xing, a popular MP3 encoder of the early 2000s, was similarly infamous for producing chirpy and slurry audio even at or above 192 kbps, while bona fide MP3 encoders like LAME do far better on less.
Poor encoder: NVENC, Nvidia's on-GPU hardware video encoder, produce very poor H.264 video even at 8-10 mbps, even on the current 8th and 9th generation (RTX 40/50 series). Good H.264 encoders like x264 is capable of producing excellent FullHD video at just 2-3 mbps.
Poor standard: Vorbis is a good example of a spec whose limits/mistakes make it impossible to preserve certain combinations of frequencies, resulting in brief passages where parts of the reproduced spectrum deflates, making some music sound as if it lost its breath, so to speak. When fed certain "triggering" audio content designed to expose problems in the spec, Xiph's reference Vorbis encoder will produce ringing sounds. Interestingly also the MP3 spec has similar limitations where certain frequency combinations (usually towards the lower and upper ends) will reproduce with quantized amplitude, even when encoded with LAME, though the outcome is nowhere near as pronounced as it can be with Vorbis.
Poor standard: MPEG-4 ASP, being limited to 4:2:0 chroma subsampling and PAL/NTSC resolutions. My beef with 4:2:0 is because of how harsh it is on low-resolution content. MPEG-4 ASP being limited to a maximum of 720x576, and the 4:2:0 chroma coverage being only a quarter of that, is the reason why DivX/XviD content is smudgy even with reproduction filters.
On FullHD content a 4:2:0 grid has almost three times higher resolution, which I agree works out on both still scenes and slow panning (the two scenarios where low chroma resolution makes itself most reminded).
Oh I didn't mean to waste your time on poor encoders. I'm sure there's many of those. I mean actual codecs that have a problem, that make it impossible to do good quality.
> Vorbis is a good example of a spec whose limits/mistakes make it impossible to preserve certain combinations of frequencies, resulting in brief passages where parts of the reproduced spectrum deflates, making some music sound as if it lost its breath, so to speak.
So the people that talk about bitrates where it's transparent are basically delusional?
> Poor standard: MPEG-4 ASP, being limited to 4:2:0 chroma subsampling and PAL/NTSC resolutions.
That makes a lot of sense, I had no idea it was limited to those resolutions.
> So the people that talk about bitrates where it's transparent are basically delusional?
In my opinion they are not. A lot of people won't pick up on differences unless something is pretty off, even if they were intimately familiar with the audio beforehand. Some people are barely able to tell the difference between one and the same piece of music being played to them first in stereo and then in mono. A fundamental problem with blind listening tests, such as those often cited from the venerable Hydrogen Audio forums, is that they provide subjective instead of objective truths - besides everyone's hearing being different, an individual's perception of music also changes by the day as it's affected by their current mood, state of health, emotional state, whether they are rested or not, and so on. Applying a scientific method (e.g. PSNR or spectral analysis) reveals an objective truth of how close a lossy product is to the original, which is where Vorbis has been shown to fall short. But subjectively a lot of users may never notice, nor even care.
> A lot of people won't pick up on differences unless something is pretty off, even if they were intimately familiar with the audio beforehand. Some people are barely able to tell the difference between one and the same piece of music being played to them first in stereo and then in mono.
Well anyone that declares something is transparent without "to me" attached, based on only their own testing, is in the flippant "delusional" category.
I'm talking about people that get the best listeners they can find to seek out differences, and combine their knowledge together while hunting for flaws. If they can't even find one or two people that can pick out a distortion, then that's a pretty trustworthy standard, even if that only gives you a 99.9th or 99.99th percentile listener. Are these people aware of the specific problem you're stating? Do they agree or disagree?
> Applying a scientific method (e.g. PSNR or spectral analysis)
But that kind of truth is far from what you actually want, a measurement of how imperfect the compression is to human ears. You can use a complicated mathematical model for how listening works, but you're stuck calibrating that model with humans, punting the problem up a level. Bulk semi-subjective data is the best foundation we can get our hands on.
"DivX and XviD both encode to MPEG-4 ASP which has a lot of shortcomings that manifestly result in the infamous sludgy green-purple banding artefacts of the time, no matter how good the chosen encoder is."
That's the fault of your decoder; I never had that problem playing DivX or XviD videos in VLC.
No; if anything it would be an issue with the encoder, but it's not. Both DivX and XviD are prime pieces of software but they live within unbridgeable limitations of the MPEG-4 ASP profile. This or that individual may not care about the outcome, and they may use various post-processing to smooth out the creases, but the limitations are all the same real and inherently visible.
It's just that you have different (or no) post-processing filters running between those two video players. MPEG cannot be arbitrarily decoded, only arbitrarily encoded.
The fact that they don't use it has nothing to do with the availability of the patented process. I don't think Amazon will just say : "You guys can have it, we don't use it anyway"
I'm unfortunately really unimpressed with the Trackpoints coming out of Lenovo today. I have a brand new ThinkPad that suffers from drift everyday, so it's easy for me to see why other companies aren't including Trackpoints on their products.
I’d argue it’s a superior mouse even with the drift, even though I agree that the drift is annoying and am amazed they have not been able to fix it all these years.
There is no good Lenovo hardware anymore. It’s been completely swallowed by the Chinese company that bought it, and even the formerly “noble”/enterprise lines are junk now. Same as HP.
Siemens holding one of the key patents in video codecs surprises me. I am not technically savvy, but I thought telecom infrastructure or direct media companies would hold the most important patents on this.
Almost true. "Siemens & Halske" startet like that (Halske being the mechanical expert).
By the time the company or it headquarter came to be known as "Siemens" it was already a "mixed bag" company --- we call it "Gemischtwarenladen". Quite early they made already made motors, generator ("dynamo maschine" 1868), insulated cables, locomotives (the worlds first electrical one was from them 1879), electric busses (1901). But also household appliances like stoves. Or automatic fuses and RCDs (Sentron) or industrial automation (Simatic).
Then it became an patent-poacher company, it was by decades no longer specialized in telecom. Yep, it still had PBX (private branch exchanges) and even the Gigaset mobile phones used to belong to Siemens. But that was dwarved by their other markets.
Siemens has acquired countless smaller businesses over the years, including some large ones (e.g. Mentor Graphics). It is entirely plausible to believe those purchases included IP such as this.
> Getting media to work on Linux is more complex than you may think.
Not at all: ffmpeg + mpv
Problem solved.
> a lot less feasible for Linux distributions designed to be freely downloaded and redistributed.
> [...] spent some time enabling third-party repositories to get multimedia codecs, you already know what it's like
Well, this was quite easy on debian, but I abandoned being a slave to distributions. I compile from source as-is, using a set of ruby scripts (primarily), not unlike homebrew, but based on YAML rather than ruby classes 1:1 (this YAML dataset is expanded into variables that fully describe how a program is installed, what it installs, and so forth, so any other programming language can also evaluate the same dataset here; I just wrote the first implementation via ruby as such, but I can add support for other languages easily, or someone else can, it is open by design).
What the article describes really is, at worst, a problem for some distribution. But even there it was never any problem to have support for multimedia, unless the distribution sucks. Many distributions suck, but many other distributions are also excellent. Arch is IMO much better than debian, by default. In fact, both debian and the rpm-based distributions, are usually quite retarded by default. Arch, Gentoo and many more, even oldschool slackware, are much saner by default. I have no idea why retarded distributions became so dominant, probably because they were very easy to get going (see ubuntu). But quite frankly, the article really blows this all out of proportion. Enabling support for codecs is easy, even on most of the retarded distributions.
I don't see video patent being a problem though really. The real test step for linux will be the upcoming mandatory age sniffing. People already looked with deep worry at systemd running ahead and supporting age sniffing (see https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954). Now the legislation is slowly changing to force everyone to give up their age. Microsoft will push next here, via Windows. You heard this here first.
Age sniffing will come - the lobbyists were all already paid to force this. The big commercial distributions will go force and ID its users.
104 comments
[ 8.7 ms ] story [ 2041 ms ] threadBut The basic idea is sound. If you invent a novel mechanism and publish it the government will grant you exclusive economic exploitation rights to that mechanism for the next 25 years. After that it is now fair game.
It is an attempt to solve the real problem that it is much harder to be first than second, the guy in first place has to spend all that time and effort to develop the thing, and the guy in second just has to copy the guy in first. To rectify this social injustice the patent system was developed, where the government would grant and enforce economic exploitation rights of the mechanism to the inventor.
A good example(old enough to not matter any more) is the how the Wright brothers invented something fundamentally new, their patent was on how to control an airplane, The problem is, once you see it, it is obvious how to control an airplane. Birds do it, Why should such an simple thing be protected? But conversely. This is a discipline that took the Wrights many years of hard and meticulous work to figure out. Is it morally correct to say "No, we are not going to grant you exploitation rights to this thing you invested so much time and effort developing"?
"Buying something over the web", Amazon, 1997: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5960411A/en
"Rounded corners in a GUI", Apple, 2014: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9396565B2/en
The problem is that patenting something doesn't require one to put a lot of time and effort - just to produce few pages of text and diagrams. So it might be sufficient for somebody to have a general idea.
Then 25 years is too much.
No. it is no way shape and form, good. 25 years is eternity in tech. The impact of the tech is not all that much related to investment either. You are just stifling any competition in the market
> It is an attempt to solve the real problem that it is much harder to be first than second, the guy in first place has to spend all that time and effort to develop the thing, and the guy in second just has to copy the guy in first. To rectify this social injustice the patent system was developed, where the government would grant and enforce economic exploitation rights of the mechanism to the inventor.
It has completely wrong structure for that. First, the duration. Second, the way you can patent vague idea, not actual concrete implementation. It is not used to stop competition from just copying your product, it is stopping anyone in market to compete.
Sometimes it is significantly harder. Often it's just a matter of luck
Patents protect the idea of a particular program. And in the post-AI world, it's the idea that holds the value, not the implementation. Implementations are cheap now.
Another alternative to preventing the entire software market from collapsing is to revive the Whelan v. Jaslow copyright standard, under which the abstract "structure, sequence, and organization" of a program is eligible for copyright. But programmers would bristle at that almost as much as robust patent protection for software. Until, that is, the money comes in with mouths to feed and mortgages to pay...
If you get A.I to reproduce the works of Stephen King, it is still the copyright of the author.
As for the copyright infringement angle, it’s well and truly too late for that to be a meaningful problem, socially and politically. It’s easily in “too big to fail” territory now—any striking down of the “fair use” exemption claim would kill the entire industry dead, because every one of them would have to throw away all their models and synthetic data and start again, and that’s geopolitically untenable. They moved too fast for judiciary to regulate them, and I think the window of opportunity for legislature to regulate them closed no later than 2024.
I'm sure the patent trolls care a lot about the "industry." It is still the early days but eventually they will come on knocking.
You won't get this, otherwise we had tons of LLM written photoshop alternatives already. And if it would work, that would be a good thing.
Maybe they try to develop it themselves, maybe they sell the idea to a big corporation that has the resources to implement it. Either way, genius begets profit, and the world gets genius ideas... in theory anyway.
But a genuine idea back then needed a long time frame to actually do something with it. 20 years seemed reasonable at the time.
The world is less logistically constrained these days. Make it 5 years, no renewals.
The modern purposes of patents seem to have shifted a long way from that.
I wonder how much of ADSL's advantage is due to trade secrets (spread across many vendors) versus how much has been published as patents.
I'm not sure if that's true, or if it's more that 1) we hear more about the more egregious stuff and/or 2) something was lost in translation with that stated purpose when the world went digital.
People are far more empowered today, many more can work near the bleeding edge, and funding can be arranged in different ways than holding on to a patent.
Good luck publishing in Costa Rica. When you're not privileged you're likely to be on the losing end. So what use is it? Better keep your invention a secret, like most do, and let the next generation display themselves as the inventors. That's the alternate reality the system actually supports.
The whole system should be scrapped. Publishing is easy nowadays, just do it. Then you'd have the rights of you can prove you're the first. Anyone that wants to use can/must give you a known amount of royalties, depending on whether the invention is a unique enabler of a class of products, or just an optimization. Which it will become over time. If you don't want that, keep it a secret and build company around it.
Very true, a friend patented a design, that he had developed over a decade, and tried to license it to established players in the astronomy field. They looked at his pitch and just implemented it anyway. Without buckets of money there's little a solo inventor can do.
But in modern tech? No.
So I see it as unavoidable evil. The patent system makes it lawful evil as opposed to chaotic evil, which is strictly speaking an improvement.
While it would be a bad idea to do so, mere legislation can set the terms of a patent to any length down to zero or out to forever. It's not a right. It's a deal meant to be beneficial to society in return for the government enforcing a limited term monopoly.
You don't have to file your patent in every jurisdiction. There have been treaties for recognising each others intellectual property rights since the late 19th century and Brazil has been part of these from the start.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_internation...
I'm going to trust a patent lawyer over someone on the internet. And so should you, if this situation applies to you, don't trust me: get a lawyer.
So as I understand it you don't have to do the full process everywhere, but you have to actively register everywhere where you want protections. But there is not automatism to the second step...
I dispute "very much". It came out in 2004 and almost all the patents are gone.
I am also interested if EVC Baseline profile will become patent free soon. Given it is built on top of AVC.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Have_the_patents_for_H.264_M...
Yes, if you care about the DVD-era still. If not, this expiry doesn't have a big impact on anything.
Now THAT'S a name I haven't heard in a long time. Yes, DivX was the sh*t back in the day. So good!
This is common sense. Nobody thinks the original iPhone is revolutionary today, but they do think it was revolutionary for the time.
While the most common kind of artifact will shift between standards, significant artifacts are fundamentally bitrate issues or encoder bugs.
If you gave DVD levels of bits-per-pixel to MPEG-4 ASP you could get something that looks nearly perfect.
There are plenty of examples of both awful codecs (software; encoders) and of digital audio/video standards (e.g. Vorbis and MPEG-4 ASP) suffering from material limits.
> If you gave DVD levels of bits-per-pixel to MPEG-4 ASP you could get something that looks nearly perfect.
No. Not even if the source is encoded by XviD. Not all problems can be solved by throwing higher bitrate at it. The ASP only supports 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, which is the largest of several shortcomings contributing to the limited quality you can achieve with ASP video material.
MPEG-4 SStP is a different matter, but that's not what DivX and XviD encodes.
4:2:0 is just fine for video. It is not a heavy penalty. It's OK for you to be rough about this. More seriously, if it's good enough for bluray and UHD bluray then it's fine.
Poor encoder: FAAC/FAAC2, the first open-source encoder for AAC audio, produce terrible audio no matter how much bitrate you let it work with. The AAC standard itself facilitates crisp audio quality at low bitrates, as heard with e.g. Apple's Core Audio AAC encoder or Nero AAC.
Poor encoder: Xing, a popular MP3 encoder of the early 2000s, was similarly infamous for producing chirpy and slurry audio even at or above 192 kbps, while bona fide MP3 encoders like LAME do far better on less.
Poor encoder: NVENC, Nvidia's on-GPU hardware video encoder, produce very poor H.264 video even at 8-10 mbps, even on the current 8th and 9th generation (RTX 40/50 series). Good H.264 encoders like x264 is capable of producing excellent FullHD video at just 2-3 mbps.
Poor standard: Vorbis is a good example of a spec whose limits/mistakes make it impossible to preserve certain combinations of frequencies, resulting in brief passages where parts of the reproduced spectrum deflates, making some music sound as if it lost its breath, so to speak. When fed certain "triggering" audio content designed to expose problems in the spec, Xiph's reference Vorbis encoder will produce ringing sounds. Interestingly also the MP3 spec has similar limitations where certain frequency combinations (usually towards the lower and upper ends) will reproduce with quantized amplitude, even when encoded with LAME, though the outcome is nowhere near as pronounced as it can be with Vorbis.
Poor standard: MPEG-4 ASP, being limited to 4:2:0 chroma subsampling and PAL/NTSC resolutions. My beef with 4:2:0 is because of how harsh it is on low-resolution content. MPEG-4 ASP being limited to a maximum of 720x576, and the 4:2:0 chroma coverage being only a quarter of that, is the reason why DivX/XviD content is smudgy even with reproduction filters.
On FullHD content a 4:2:0 grid has almost three times higher resolution, which I agree works out on both still scenes and slow panning (the two scenarios where low chroma resolution makes itself most reminded).
> Vorbis is a good example of a spec whose limits/mistakes make it impossible to preserve certain combinations of frequencies, resulting in brief passages where parts of the reproduced spectrum deflates, making some music sound as if it lost its breath, so to speak.
So the people that talk about bitrates where it's transparent are basically delusional?
> Poor standard: MPEG-4 ASP, being limited to 4:2:0 chroma subsampling and PAL/NTSC resolutions.
That makes a lot of sense, I had no idea it was limited to those resolutions.
Thanks for the time explaining those.
In my opinion they are not. A lot of people won't pick up on differences unless something is pretty off, even if they were intimately familiar with the audio beforehand. Some people are barely able to tell the difference between one and the same piece of music being played to them first in stereo and then in mono. A fundamental problem with blind listening tests, such as those often cited from the venerable Hydrogen Audio forums, is that they provide subjective instead of objective truths - besides everyone's hearing being different, an individual's perception of music also changes by the day as it's affected by their current mood, state of health, emotional state, whether they are rested or not, and so on. Applying a scientific method (e.g. PSNR or spectral analysis) reveals an objective truth of how close a lossy product is to the original, which is where Vorbis has been shown to fall short. But subjectively a lot of users may never notice, nor even care.
Well anyone that declares something is transparent without "to me" attached, based on only their own testing, is in the flippant "delusional" category.
I'm talking about people that get the best listeners they can find to seek out differences, and combine their knowledge together while hunting for flaws. If they can't even find one or two people that can pick out a distortion, then that's a pretty trustworthy standard, even if that only gives you a 99.9th or 99.99th percentile listener. Are these people aware of the specific problem you're stating? Do they agree or disagree?
> Applying a scientific method (e.g. PSNR or spectral analysis)
But that kind of truth is far from what you actually want, a measurement of how imperfect the compression is to human ears. You can use a complicated mathematical model for how listening works, but you're stuck calibrating that model with humans, punting the problem up a level. Bulk semi-subjective data is the best foundation we can get our hands on.
Not needing to get up and switch discs because you could use divx or xvid instead was a real life improvement.
There was the part where you had to double click the media player to make it full screen again, but still pretty nerd for the time.
That's the fault of your decoder; I never had that problem playing DivX or XviD videos in VLC.
I'm also thinking about the click wheel; I got one of my kids a knockoff iPod for Christmas last year.
Can other e-commerce sites legally "one-click" to purchase like Amazon now?!?
[1]: https://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/projects/lpf/Patents/Gif/Gi...
By the time the company or it headquarter came to be known as "Siemens" it was already a "mixed bag" company --- we call it "Gemischtwarenladen". Quite early they made already made motors, generator ("dynamo maschine" 1868), insulated cables, locomotives (the worlds first electrical one was from them 1879), electric busses (1901). But also household appliances like stoves. Or automatic fuses and RCDs (Sentron) or industrial automation (Simatic).
Then it became an patent-poacher company, it was by decades no longer specialized in telecom. Yep, it still had PBX (private branch exchanges) and even the Gigaset mobile phones used to belong to Siemens. But that was dwarved by their other markets.
Not at all: ffmpeg + mpv
Problem solved.
> a lot less feasible for Linux distributions designed to be freely downloaded and redistributed.
> [...] spent some time enabling third-party repositories to get multimedia codecs, you already know what it's like
Well, this was quite easy on debian, but I abandoned being a slave to distributions. I compile from source as-is, using a set of ruby scripts (primarily), not unlike homebrew, but based on YAML rather than ruby classes 1:1 (this YAML dataset is expanded into variables that fully describe how a program is installed, what it installs, and so forth, so any other programming language can also evaluate the same dataset here; I just wrote the first implementation via ruby as such, but I can add support for other languages easily, or someone else can, it is open by design).
What the article describes really is, at worst, a problem for some distribution. But even there it was never any problem to have support for multimedia, unless the distribution sucks. Many distributions suck, but many other distributions are also excellent. Arch is IMO much better than debian, by default. In fact, both debian and the rpm-based distributions, are usually quite retarded by default. Arch, Gentoo and many more, even oldschool slackware, are much saner by default. I have no idea why retarded distributions became so dominant, probably because they were very easy to get going (see ubuntu). But quite frankly, the article really blows this all out of proportion. Enabling support for codecs is easy, even on most of the retarded distributions.
I don't see video patent being a problem though really. The real test step for linux will be the upcoming mandatory age sniffing. People already looked with deep worry at systemd running ahead and supporting age sniffing (see https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/40954). Now the legislation is slowly changing to force everyone to give up their age. Microsoft will push next here, via Windows. You heard this here first.
Age sniffing will come - the lobbyists were all already paid to force this. The big commercial distributions will go force and ID its users.