[HN Gopher] Alarm raised after Microsoft wins data-encoding patent
___________________________________________________________________
Alarm raised after Microsoft wins data-encoding patent
Author : thunderbong
Score : 150 points
Date : 2022-02-18 16:34 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| The_rationalist wrote:
| bkmeneguello wrote:
| Patents do more harm than good. Ideas aren't scarce and
| obviously, this is abused by bad players to restrict competition.
| Doesn't make sense to restrict the right of someone to do a
| sequence of calculations on his own computer.
| martindbp wrote:
| I think patents are fine, but the criterion used to award them
| are strange.
|
| We only need a simple criterion: absent this patent, would this
| technology have been invented anyway (within a reasonable
| timeframe)? Yes, then don't award a patent. It's a bit
| subjective, but so is "substantiality".
|
| By this criterion, would a certain drug have been invented if
| it was not expected to receive a patent. That is usually a
| clear no. It takes a lot of money and resources to develop new
| drugs but little to copy, therefore companies would stop doing
| research altogether.
|
| Another example, would e-ink displays have been invented if it
| was not rewarded a patent? Absolutely yes, by multiple
| independent parties probably, thus should not deserve a patent.
|
| I don't think there is a single software patent that would pass
| this criterion.
| naasking wrote:
| > therefore companies would stop doing research altogether.
|
| Don't discount first mover advantage.
| aunty_helen wrote:
| So you're suggesting that if there were no patents, drug
| companies would cease to exist?
|
| That doesn't seem very likely.
| smitty1e wrote:
| Patents have the positive effect of rewarding risk to
| recoup development costs.
|
| The 17yr patent clock ends up leaving a handful of years
| for a company to balance its books before expiry and the
| onslaught of generics.
|
| Hence the ludicrous per-pill costs.
|
| Those demonizing pharma have not done the homework.
|
| Disclaimer: wife works in pharma.
| naasking wrote:
| I often demonize pharma _because_ my partner works in
| that field. People in that field are often blind to its
| faults, like perverse incentive structures and Byzantine
| regulatory processes that often harm more than help.
| Pharma companies ' R&D budget is dwarfed by its marketing
| and expenditures on financial games like stock buybacks,
| so this talk of recouping costs doesn't hold much water
| in my opinion.
|
| If something is necessary but unprofitable in the near
| term, the early research is often already publically
| funded, like the mRNA vaccines.
| smitty1e wrote:
| > Byzantine regulatory processes that often harm more
| than help
|
| Right. Regulation is to the economy as bandages to the
| mummy.
|
| The incentives are deep and perverse.
| naasking wrote:
| The regulatory failures are numerous, and even recent
| examples are common:
|
| https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/when-will-the-fda-
| appr...
|
| https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/adumbrations-of-
| aducan...
|
| The FDA is simultaneously too lax and too strict.
| martindbp wrote:
| Mm, no, you're right. But they'd spend a lot less on
| research, they'd have to. I don't claim to know a lot about
| that industry so I may be wrong, it's just an example.
| Can't think of an example where patents are more defensible
| though.
| CWuestefeld wrote:
| False choice fallacies aren't helpful. Incentives change
| behavior at the margins. So if there were no patents, we'd
| like have fewer drugs.
| aunty_helen wrote:
| Yes I know, that's why I replied to:
|
| >but little to copy, therefore companies would stop doing
| research altogether.
|
| It's much more likely these companies would find a
| different incentives / business models.
| vel0city wrote:
| > absent this patent, would this technology have been
| invented anyway (within a reasonable timeframe)?
|
| This would be the criteria of non-obviousness that already
| exists in US patent law. The problem is it seems like lots of
| patent agents seem to approve what lots of people "skilled in
| the art" would consider obvious (one-click checkout? shopping
| cart? really?!). Which then requires some level of litigation
| to have a lot of people "skilled in the art" to testify of
| the obviousness of the patent.
|
| IMO a lot of these patent issues we see today could be solved
| if we had more patent agents and more skilled patent agents,
| but then we've got a ton of otherwise smart engineers and
| other kinds of people spending their days reviewing patents
| instead of actually making new things.
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| Would you say the concept of patents is inherently bad, or the
| current patent system?
|
| Without some protection for original research being published,
| genuine inventors are forced to keep their ideas secret and/or
| find other ways to protect them.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| > Without some protection for original research being
| published, genuine inventors are forced to keep their ideas
| secret and/or find other ways to protect them.
|
| Publication of "secrets" and general know-how can be incented
| via post-facto prize awards. Unlike patents, these don't
| forbid anyone from making use of the innovation unless they
| pay up. They replace a focus on enforcement - with
| publication often a mere afterthought in practice - with one
| on publication itself.
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| I do like the idea of prizes, they seem to work quite well
| for some well defined problems that needs solving.
|
| I'm not sure they would prevent ideas being kept secret for
| most forms of commercial research though. Publicly funded
| research should be available to everyone in any case IMHO.
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| The concept of software patents is inherently bad. You're
| basically saying no one is allowed to write down the same
| idea as you.
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| I agree that software patents are inherently bad, along
| with maths.
|
| I still see a role for patents in other spheres, although
| the current system seems deeply flawed.
|
| The main problem to be addressed in how we ensure society
| as a whole benefits from original research. The original
| conception of patents was to grant limited rights for
| original ideas, as long as the work is published and does
| not remain secret.
| JPLeRouzic wrote:
| That's absolutely true for companies with deep pockets, but
| absolutely false for SME and lone inventors.
|
| Nearly all big companies are involved in patent litigation,
| and unfortunately often it's and easy way to crush nascent
| competition.
| MattPalmer1086 wrote:
| I agree the current system is deeply flawed. The question I
| want to address is how do we ensure original ideas are not
| lost to humanity (either because they are kept secret, or
| because the research is never done in the first place).
| JPLeRouzic wrote:
| > how do we ensure original ideas are not lost to
| humanity either because they are kept secret...
|
| I understand what you mean but patents are not a good
| means for this goal.
|
| I know a bit the patent world (I was granted 12 patents),
| patents are for small innovations. I am not even sure
| it's possible to patent some complex intellectual work,
| because a patent is basically the description of a
| process, not the description of knowledge.
|
| There is little in common between a patent and a
| scientific article which conveys much more information.
| Yes, you can provide a lot information in the description
| section but they are not protected, only the claims are
| protected by law. Claims are either descriptive or
| describing a method to process something. After all
| patents were invented to protect things during the
| industrial revolution, essentially bolts, nuts and new
| steam machines.
|
| Another thing is that most inventors do not recognize
| their work once the patent engineers have translated it
| in legal language.
|
| Sometimes in my case, the patent engineers did not
| understood at all what my colleagues and me meant, or
| they tried to make "improvements" indeed without the
| slightest knowledge about the application domain. What
| value have those patents to describe what was meant?
|
| Most companies which have to reproduce a patent, have a
| hard time. Generic drugs companies tell it is impossible
| to reproduce drugs from the patent and they have to be
| helped by the inventors.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Not sure I agree with that completely but I do think our patent
| system needs to be updated and overhauled.
|
| Everyone shits on China for stealing ideas but at the same time
| the general culture there does not have the same respect for
| the idea of patenting an idea - for better or worse.
|
| Personally I think there is a nice middle ground between those
| two
| ordx wrote:
| How is it patentable if the "prior art" exists?
| bell-cot wrote:
| How large is your legal budget, compared to those of the
| parties who you wish to coerce, restrict, delay, ...?
|
| (No, the Patent Office does _not_ have a good reputation for
| rejecting prior-art-plus-a-few-minor-tweaks patent applications
| up front.)
| btrettel wrote:
| I haven't looked at the patent in detail, but in my experience
| as a former patent examiner, likely the claims cover some new
| detail missing from the prior art. You need to look at what was
| claimed to know what is covered.
|
| Take a look at claims 1, 19 and 20 to see what is covered:
| https://patents.google.com/patent/US11234023B2/en
|
| The application received 3 rejections before allowance, so it's
| not like the USPTO rubber-stamped it:
| https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/#!/applications/16456602/ifw/...
|
| I'm not familiar with this technology and don't have time to
| take a closer look. But if I were to take a closer look, I'd
| check out what the examiner wrote in their allowance (Notice of
| Allowance and Fees Due) to see if they identified a specific
| feature that makes it patentable.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| > _But if I were to take a closer look, I 'd check out what
| the examiner wrote in their allowance (Notice of Allowance
| and Fees Due) to see if they identified a specific feature
| that makes it patentable._
|
| Thanks. That seems helpful.
|
| To save people some digging and so it's easier to discuss,
| I've copied (actually retyped) something I found which seems
| relevant. At your second link, there's a document called
| "Notice of Allowance and Fees Due (PTOL-85)", and starting on
| p. 10, there's a section called "Reasons for Allowance",
| which reads:
|
| ----------
|
| _Reasons for Allowance_
|
| _Claims 1 - 28 are allowed in light of the Examiner 's
| Amendment and the Applicant's response filed on August 23,
| 2021._
|
| _The following is an Examiner 's statement of reasons for
| allowance: Applicant has amended independent claim to
| incorporate detailed subject matter of the decoding process
| and apparatus._
|
| _The closest prior art Greenfield et al., (US 2016 /0248440
| A1), Li et al., (US 2015/0103902 A1) and Converse (US
| 2017/0164007 A1) do not disclose the claimed element, "during
| a first phase of the two-phase structure, selectively
| updating, depending on a determination of whether or not an
| output symbol from a previous iteration was generated, state
| of the RANS decoder using probability information for the
| output symbol from the previous iteration, the state of the
| RANS decoder being tracked using a value;" and "during the
| second phase of the two-phase structure, selectively
| generating, depending on a determination of whether or not
| the state of the RANS decoder includes sufficient information
| to generate an output symbol for a current iteration, the
| output symbol for the current iteration using the state of
| the RANS decoder, the state of the RANS decoder including
| sufficient information to generate the output symbol for the
| current iteration if the state of the RANS decoder is greater
| than a threshold". Therefore, the prior art references taken
| either alone or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly
| suggest the limitations of the independent claims. While
| using a range asymmetric number system (RANS) decoder was
| known at the time of the invention, Applicant's very specific
| claimed structure is considered patentable over the prior art
| of record._
|
| ----------
|
| As a total layman, not knowing the tech here (or patents or
| law), it sounds promising to me, in the sense that it
| probably doesn't stop everyone from using RANS.
|
| It mentions prior art and says "RANS" ... "was known" in
| conjunction with that. And it also says "very specific
| claimed structure", which also sounds like this doesn't cover
| all of RANS.
| depereo wrote:
| It's 'first to file' since 2013.
| ratsmack wrote:
| The US is hobbling itself with software patents. China pretty
| much ignores all patents and will win in the global market
| because of this. US companies need to quit the stupid patent
| wars, lest the become irrelevant on the world markets.
| dylan604 wrote:
| How many things have you developed after spending unkown
| amount of time? You don't feel you're entitled to ensure
| you are credited with that work and allowed to earn from
| that work?
|
| As I've stated elsewhere in this thread, you don't have to
| be a dick about owning the patent. It's your patent, and
| you can do with it what you want. There are patent pools
| that are managed to ensure they can't be used for evil that
| you can donate your patent to if you can't afford the time
| to manage it.
| Buttons840 wrote:
| > How many things have you developed after spending
| unkown amount of time? You don't feel you're entitled to
| ensure you are credited with that work and allowed to
| earn from that work?
|
| I do feel that if I spend my time creating something on
| my own, I should be free to use it, yes. Unfortunately,
| the patent system means I'm not necessarily allowed to
| use something I invented and created myself, because it
| may be patented.
|
| As John Carmack said:
|
| "The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out
| to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up
| with a program that could not be legally used because
| someone else followed the same logical steps some years
| ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying."
| TrueDuality wrote:
| There is an inherent disconnect in your argument.
| Concrete implementations of software deserve protection
| sure, and do under copyright law. Software patents are
| attempting to reserve concepts and generally only hurt
| innovation by restricting other unrelated ideas from
| using a technique even if they came up with the algorithm
| entirely in a white box. History has shown time after
| time of simultaneous development of ideas once all the
| pieces are available (just look at Calculus).
|
| This algorithm is a great example as its a general use
| encoding mechanism. If I develop software to encode and
| decode radio transmissions to a satellite using it,
| patenting it will prevent it from being using for say
| image encoding and decoding across the web. That use has
| zero impact on my concrete implementation or my
| commercial sector.
|
| Even for overlapping industries, if there are zero
| patents, and two competing companies independently come
| to the same technological solution what is the
| justification for being able to patent that? If they
| didn't come to it independently because its available
| publicly on the web, then its prior art and shouldn't be
| patent-able anyway. If one reversed engineered the other
| solution and reproduced it, that's perfectly legal for
| other industries under certain circumstances and is
| explicitly allowed under the DMCA. I'm not arguing its
| right, but if that is supposed to be illegal patents as
| designed are the wrong tool for enforcement.
|
| This isn't a patent covering a specific use of a specific
| algorithm for a specific industry (which even then I
| don't think should be patent-able) but the general
| algorithm itself restricting ALL uses of it. This is an
| existing concept that was intended to be open, already
| exists in the real world, and is on route to becoming
| part of international standards being gobbled up by
| Microsoft. There does not appear to be a significant or
| meaningful contribution to the work in this patent and
| should really have been rejected due to prior art.
|
| Saying the original author should have patented this is
| also facile as that takes an enormous amount of resources
| that isn't available to most lone developers, or
| researchers, especially when the intent is to give it
| away freely to world.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The intent of filing a patent to give away freely is
| specifically to protect against someone else filing the
| patent. It can be expensive, but not prohibitively so if
| you're willing to do some of the leg work yourself.
| WalterBright wrote:
| I agree that patents are unrealistic in the modern world.
|
| Frankly, it seems that most (nearly all) patents have only
| a trivial amount of money invested to create the idea,
| other than what the patent lawyer costs. For example,
| "playing checkers --- with a computer" patents. Ending all
| patents would not slow down innovation at all.
|
| There is one exception, drug patenting, where billions are
| spent developing a drug and getting it approved.
| pxeger1 wrote:
| Did I read this wrong, or do you think drug patenting is
| a good thing? Why?
| CheezeIt wrote:
| Do you understand why we have a patent system?
| jeremyjh wrote:
| > Why?
|
| Did you read this ?
|
| > where billions are spent developing a drug and getting
| it approved
| gknoy wrote:
| I'm not the parent, but I think patents for drugs are a
| good thing. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but
| the ease of copying them (once a chemical is known)
| combined with the cost of finding the drugs seem to fit
| very well with the spirit of patents, where new knowledge
| development is rewarded with a temporary monopoly.
|
| I do grant that the practice of patenting small
| incremental changes to existing patented things ("this
| drug, with slower release!") does seem a bit
| questionable, but overall it still seems like a good
| thing. I'd be interested in hearing your argument for why
| it's not a good fit.
| WalterBright wrote:
| Maybe a reasonable solution would be a patent filer would
| have to pay a registration fee of $1 million if the
| patent is approved.
|
| So, you might say, only big business could afford to file
| patents. Not exactly, $1m is well within the reach of a
| startup.
|
| But even for big business, they're not going to file 1000
| patents at a cost of a billion dollars.
|
| Patent trolling would become an untenable business plan.
|
| https://www.seattletimes.com/business/amazon/microsoft-
| still...
| btrettel wrote:
| If you're implying that only filed patent applications are
| available as prior art, that's not right. Anything available
| to the public can be prior art in the US. (Even some private
| things can be prior art in the US, for example, an offer to
| sell the invention creates prior art even if completely
| confidential.) If MS filed a patent application before anyone
| else, they could still receive a prior art rejection for
| anything available to the public like code available online,
| academic papers, etc.
|
| (Source: I'm a former patent examiner.)
| depereo wrote:
| Appreciate the clarification.
| SloopJon wrote:
| It's really hard to tell based on an article like this. The ANS
| creator is quoted as saying, "I don't know what to do with it -
| [Microsoft's patent] looks like just the description of the
| standard algorithm." However, who knows how much experience he
| has with patents? It may be that Duda invented the shoelace,
| and Microsoft invented the plastic sleeve at the tip of the
| shoelace.
|
| As Timothy Lee says in the article, the problem with this type
| of patent is that it boxes in how you can use the original
| technology: you can freely tie your shoes with this shoelace,
| but if you use a double knot, now you infringe a patent.
|
| In some ways, this mirrors the difference between copyleft and
| permissive copright licenses. By failing to patent the original
| invention, Duda made ANS useful and widely available, but he
| now has no leverage against Microsoft.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| >and Microsoft invented the plastic sleeve at the tip of the
| shoelace.
|
| That's called the aglet
| inetknght wrote:
| > _By failing to patent the original invention, Duda made ANS
| useful and widely available, but he now has no leverage
| against Microsoft._
|
| Except, he can challenge Microsoft's patent on prior art
| terms
| yyyk wrote:
| How could any normal person possibly afford challenging
| Microsoft in court?
| tomrod wrote:
| By taking it to court. If support is necessary, support
| can be raised. Big is not invincible.
| asah wrote:
| more likely:
|
| 1. MSFT attempts to assert patent
|
| 2. Defender says haha
|
| 3. MSFT files motion with court
|
| 4. Defender calls MSFT: "you want your patent
| invalidated, because this is how you get your patent
| invalidated"
|
| 5. <back and forth>
|
| 6. Defender pays $, MSFT withdraws motion from court.
|
| even more likely:
|
| 1. MSFT doesn't take companies to court on patents -
| that's not their business model
|
| 2. In the next mega cross-licensing negotiation between
| MSFT and <Google, IBM, etc> said patent it added to a
| pile of 1000s of others.
|
| 3. Little stack pays bigger stack by the inch (not
| joking)
|
| 4. Your cellphone is $1 more expensive
|
| 5. Patent attorney's kid goes to college. Yours does too.
|
| 6. Attorney's kid goes debt-free. Yours does not.
|
| (pls correct me if there's a more modern version)
| ffhhj wrote:
| Money is the actual limitation.
| midjji wrote:
| With the money he made by making it free?
| ruph123 wrote:
| If the original creator patented ANS and then just basically
| waived the patent for everyone, would that not help the situation
| with other implementations that are "close enough" to the
| original?
| TD-Linux wrote:
| Generally no, simply publishing is enough prior art to avoid
| someone else getting a patent. It can be helpful in indirect
| ways, like being more likely to be seen by a patent examiner.
| Alternately, you can license it under a defensive patent
| license which is very useful in some situations (see e.g. Opus,
| AV1).
| fartcannon wrote:
| Cool, so now Microsoft can continue sabre rattling about patents
| and the 'true cost of ownership'. Cool.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| Fun hobby: Asking a group of libertarians if intellectual
| property is a thing, then walking away whistling.
| dylan604 wrote:
| The act of receiving a patent doesn't make one a dick on it's
| own. You could file for the patent, but freely license it and not
| be a dick. You could even license it at a very modest fee and
| still not be a dick. There are ways of doing things without being
| a dick, just most chose to be a dick. It's not the patent's
| fault.
| JacobThreeThree wrote:
| >You could file for the patent, but freely license it and not
| be a dick. You could even license it at a very modest fee and
| still not be a dick.
|
| If the patent system has to rely on corporations "not being
| dicks" it doesn't sound like a very functional system.
|
| Serious patent and IP reform is long overdue.
| yyyk wrote:
| The mere act of having to ask for a licence already has a
| chilling effect, and the legal uncertainty just makes it worse.
|
| For example, if Google ever gets into a patent war with
| Microsoft, would their 'free' licence be revoked? Does that
| mean the moment they'd use this coding they risk having their
| own patent portofolio be unenforceable? If so, they would have
| an interest in not using the technology from the 'free'
| licence, and software would be set back.
| The_rationalist wrote:
| eschaton wrote:
| A patent is license to be a dick. If you're not going to be a
| dick, you don't bother with the license in the first place.
| technothrasher wrote:
| Unless you're trying to protect yourself from somebody else
| patenting it and being a dick.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Does patenting it yourself put you in a better spot than
| having blatant prior art?
| jraph wrote:
| You don't need to patent something to prevent somebody else
| from doing it. Just make it public and prior art applies.
| throwaway7033 wrote:
| Prior art only applies if the USPTO agrees to review the
| patent and the examiner considers it prior art; neither
| of these are guaranteed.
| WithinReason wrote:
| Somewhat tangential, but if you want to obtain an intuitive
| understanding between probability and information (and thus
| understand many compression algorithms), play around with this
| excellent interactive graphic from Wikipedia that explains
| arithmetic coding:
|
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Arithmet...
|
| It's from here:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_coding
|
| The ANS algorithm mentioned in the article has the theoretically-
| close-to-optimal compression ratio of arithmetic coding and the
| speed of Huffman coding
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huffman_coding)
| willis936 wrote:
| >play around with this excellent interactive graphic from
| Wikipedia that explains arithmetic coding
|
| If I'm not mistaken, that graphic demonstrates optimal prefix
| codes in general as opposed to what is unique about arithmetic
| coding.
|
| Admittedly, I have not looked into arithmetic coding, but the
| graphic reminded me of huffman coding exercises in grad school
| to teach prefix coding.
| yyyk wrote:
| Arithmetic coding is generally superiour to Huffman coding, but
| was very underused because of the patent situation. Will we see a
| rerun? If so, it would be another case a software patent set back
| the industry.
| datavirtue wrote:
| How many parents are coming out of corporations that are just
| meant for resumes? None of which will ever be looked at again or
| enforced by the corporation. This is cancer.
|
| I just came off a project where one of the developers secured a
| patent for some data aggregation in Spark. I wasn't interested
| enough to read the patent because so many basic things about the
| system sucked.
| dkga wrote:
| Look, we've all seen this before - Hendrickson will get the
| patent!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-02-18 23:02 UTC)