IDCT Approximation: Worth a Patent? 300
Between 1804 and 1807 Jean Fourier discovered the
Fourier
Transform: a means of transforming any function into its
frequency
components. He initially used it to study the
propagation of heat in solids. Since then the Fourier transform has found a
myriad of applications such as the JPEG, MPEG and MP3 formats... It's even been used to multiply polynomials. The main computational cost of the Fourier
transform are the N^2 multiplications it requires. In 1903 Runge noticed that
the number of multiplications required could be reduced to N.log(N) by using
trigonometric symmetries. In 1965 this was applied in computers by Cooley and
Tukey: the fast Fourier transform became
popular. Since computers represent numbers in binary, multiplications and
divisions by powers of 2 are commonly implemented by shifting bits left and
right. Multiplications by constants are easily optimized using the same
trick. In 1999 Trac
Tran of Johns Hopkins University found an
approximation to the
DCT which causes very little error, yet uses only 13 shifts and 31
additions for N=8. Given the recursive nature of the FFT, this transform could be used as part of an FFT with N>8. Apparently, he
has applied for a
patent for this approximation. Do you think this is worth a patent? Do you know of prior art?
Re:No. Mathematical function. (Score:2)
But this is what is going on at the major U.S. research universities now. This patent craze is seen as benefitting the universities (by assignment of rights) at a time when their financial problems are both acute and chronic. At least many of these institutions are loathe to execute exclusive licenses, and their licensing demands can be reasonable.
Those who think that these patents can occasionally inhibit academic progress are probably correct.
Let the baby have his bottle (Score:2)
Just a few comments: This is likely to have a rather limited range of applications. I haven't read the paper, but if this method scaled easily beyond 8 point transforms, it would have been mentioned clearly on the web page. Academics like to play up the applicability of their ideas. There would be fairly direct applications of 8 point transforms in image processing, but I doubt this achieves more than a factor of 2 increase in performance. For longer transforms this could be used as a core operation after the longer transform has been broken down to the 8 point level; but then the performance increase would be a lot less (a lot of the computation will be in breaking the transform down to that level). There are quite good FFT codes out there that don't do anything special with short length transforms. This is a marginal advance at best and the open source community can probably do without it.
Regarding prior art: There are people working on FFT approximations (I don't know how the methods apply to the DCT). Check out:
http://epubs.siam.org/sam-bin/dbq/article/31626
However these methods use some pretty heavy mathematics and are intended for transformation of LARGE amounts of data. The applications are different and the methods are different. A patent on this sort of thing would be much more limiting.
History: Gauss actually used the FFT idea for astronomical calculations in the early 19th century. Unfortunately he didn't publish. The idea has been frequently rediscovered. I'd be surprised if Runge even has second place.
There are other fast methods for short length transforms. Check out the book Arithmetic Complexity of Computations by Shmuel Winograd (also published by SIAM). The punchline of the FFT chapter is that the multiplications can be made O(N) if you are willing to accept more additions. For short transforms this is often a good trade-off. Length 8 sounds a bit long for this sort of thing (the number of additions grows VERY quickly with transform size using the Winograd approach). But still it would be interesting to make a comparison. Maybe I'll do it later.
Regarding patents, this seems to be intended for VLSI implementation. Patenting a new VLSI design seems like the sort of thing patents are traditionally intended for. IMO we should be fighting the extension of patents to software algorithms. Unless you are against all patents, this probably isn't a battle worth fighting. And the dangers of the anti-software-patent crowd looking like crackpots if they go after patents for hardware is substantial. We'll get farther if we are fighting extensions of patents to new areas instead of trying to abolish the entire patent system. So let the baby have his bottle.
Finally, don't use Numerical Recipes code as suggested by another poster. Download something from netlib.org. The Numerical Recipes code is notoriously buggy. It's distributed under a more restrictive license than most (perhaps all) of the netlib code. And I've heard of particular problems with the FFT code (although this might have been fixed in later editions). In many cases Numerical Recipes is based on code available on netlib. The only "value" they add is in the exposition and references and in the bugs they introduce. Read the book, but don't use the code.
Re:Patents are for hardware...this IS hardware (Score:1)
Poster credibility went boink long ago... (Score:3)
1) Slashdot posters have no problem commenting on something they know nothing about.
2) Slashdot moderators have no problems giving points to comments on something they know nothing about.
The result is that uninformed posts go straight to the top if they sound halfway reasonable. It's like peer review by a bunch of monkeys. Sure it's been reviewed, but that doesn't really give the content any more validity.
Re:What a surprise! (Score:2)
I don't say that said matematician shouldn't have something for his work - I just call you to see and think, would this promote common good (I mean not welfare of one scientists' family, but the level of all science) if one should pay for every scientific result? Wasn't science based on free ideas exchange once? Or am I missing something vital here?
And my usual question goes here - who funded the research? Obviously, if someone did and this gets patented, patent revenues should go to funder, not?
Lightbulbs... (Score:2)
Edison a little. He was "responsible" for a whole
bunch of stuff (records, movies, etc ) but he invented almost none of it. He abused his staff, and took every ounce of credit for himself, vindictively destroying the lives of former employees who dared point out their own roles in inventions. He truly was the Gates of his day, but this is unfair on Bill, who isn't quite as unfair as Edison was.
Tesla was a poor business man for sure, but you would probably object if someone told you Gates invented the computer.
Re:You need to read up on RadixSort... (Score:1)
--
You miss the point! (Score:1)
If you are against software patents generally, but allow "non-obvious" patents, your argument against patents degenerate into debates about opinion, creativity, and what "obvious" means, basically you will fail to convince anyone with a brain that software patents are bad.
You can't go half-hog on this, you are either against software patents or you aren't - I am disappointed that more slashdot readers don't see this.
--
Similar DFT methods (almost prior art) (Score:1)
Looking at it quickly and without checking the math looks like something you could submit to a conference and get published in the procedings but not actually patent material, even if i was to agree with patenting such algorithms.
Re:The Patent System Abused once more (Score:2)
I thought the original purpose of the patent system was to allow people to maintain control of their inventions so that they could profit off of them without having to worry about someone stealing their inventions. It wasn't to encourage people, it was to protect them. And that is still why people file patents today. It's not to keep other people from getting their hands on the technology, but to obtain the right to market the invention. Patents were never supposed to benefit the world at large. They were merely for the individual.
We must modify it so that it distinguish between intellectual property belonging to humanity in general, and intellectual property that has been genuinely created, and thus can be owned, for a time, by an individual.
How do you make this determination, and who do you get to make it? Thomas Edison patented the light bulb. Do you know where we would be today without the light bulb? Modern day society would be lost without it. Most American office buildings don't even allow natural light in past about 10 feet from the walls. It's a technology that certainly humanity can claim a right to, but one man patented it and held the rights to that product for 17 years. That didn't prevent the adoption of the invention, nor did it ever prevent people from using the light bulb. Your wallet analogy is completely off base. People don't just "find" algorithms and techniques. They work hard to develop them. As far as I know, no one has yet patented at "mathematical truth", either, as your whole post is based. Algorithms are not "truths" like "1+1=2" and "x*1=x". They are inventions. No one can patent light, but they can patent a light bulb. And they can develop a process whereby ordinary light can be reflected to increase its brightness 10 times (hypothetically speaking; this probably can't be done in actuality). The latter is certainly something that could be done in nature, but it took a man to figure out how.
And what's even worse is that the subject of this article isn't even patenting an algorithm, he's actually patenting a hardware implementation of that algorithm, which is completely within his right.
The only people who are miffed by the patent system are a) people who didn't think of it first and b) people who want everything to be freely available. As for the rest of us who live in a capitalist world and rather like it, patents serve only to reinforce that system and give people rights within it.
Patent? (Score:2)
Holy Toledo!! (Score:2)
----------------
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Albert Einstein
Yeah, its probably valid (Score:5)
Now, as far as some of the comments that I've seen stating "No, don't patent this" most of them are based on a pretty wild abuse of what is being patented.
This is not like Einstein patenting relativistic effects. This is so wrong I can't even draw a parallel. Slashdot poster credibility goes "Boink".
This isn't like patenting a form of arithmetic. There are patents on fast ways of doing various arithmetic operation, you're still free to do arithmetic. What you're not free to do is to use that particular method of speeding operations. For the average person it doesn't matter. For somebody designing circuitry for fast computer hardware maybe it matters. If so you license the patent, or you hire your own mathematicians or you just use some other method.
Now, is the patent worth much? Probably not. There are other fast discrete cosine transforms. I used to work/share an office with one of the leading experts on that particular transform. Consider that even if this invention is two fold faster than the preceding state of the art Moore's law means the present state of the art will be as fast as this new transform in 18 months. So for this particular operation if there was a 2 times performance increase some company could say they were 18 months ahead of the competition. Big deal since there are enough other factors that are more important to determine performance for most applications. Expecting a 2X improvement is also terribly optimistic. He compared his algorithm to the short hand notation for the DCT/IDCT. In reality a lot of the multiplications would be handled by shifts anyway and there are already other fast implementations.
Re:What a surprise! (Score:2)
I disagree. The fundamental question is:
Do we want patent law in the realms of mathematics?
I don't have to be able to judge the claims of that transform author, it is simply that I want to keep the freedom of doing mathematics without having to be a lawyer at the same time.
The situation with compression (LZH, mp3, ..) is ridiculous enough.
All those claim on the ground that their algorithm could be implemented in hardware and then apply patent laws, that originally came from the domain of engineering. Heck, since we have those all purpose computers available, this reasoning would gather any mathematical procedure. Only no one has been barefaced enough to claim very fundamental algorithms yet (maybe except that patent on run length encoding).
As the free software community is about freedom to code and share, no wonder that these issues make us angry.
Re:What a surprise! (Score:2)
But nonetheless I try to answer:
(1) without seeing a claim, how can you possibly know what is the subject matter of the patent?
Why do I have to consider the patent at all in the first place? That is my point.
I rather want to keep the freedom to use whatever method I am capable of using and sharing that, than have those economic benefits that the patent advocates promise.
This is a cultural choice, I don't try to argue for the best economic way.
(2) How do you define the "realms of mathematics?"
As that canon of theorems and techniques that is commonly associated with it. Of course this can be only characterized and not be defined with rigour.
Precisely what are your particular subject matter objections to patents concerning compression technologies on this "pure mathematics" ground?
Like I wrote, I have a problem with the idea of patenting itself. It seems not possible to me to seperate ideas from a field into patent worthy ones and those who aren't. Add to that the fact that the state of the art procedure from today is in the standard texts tomorrow. And all this should be handled by the patent lawyers? Have a look at the Usenet FAQ on compression. It is full of cases where they goofed. Like patents on simple algorithms and cases where several patents were granted for the same idea. Very hard to accept that a simple scheme still has implications, like with the Unisys patent on GIF format.
Exactly how does it stop you from the "freedom of doing mathematics without having to be a lawyer."
I can't use and implement the tool what I want and share it as I want. And don't tell me mathematicians don't need this. (I might point you to a lot of software packages from PDEs to algebra in that case)
With all due respect, to this lawyer/mathematician, your argument sounds more like attempting to "lawyer" away the patent law than to argue for the virtues of pure science.
I don't intend to argue or "proof" that my way is better than yours, as I deem it a matter of belief in the principles of free exchange. I think it is a choice (software patents or not) and I don't want them. Luckily the EU so far seems to agree with me.
Looks patentable to me (Score:3)
Yes, the trick of using shift-and-add to do multiplies is well known. Yes, using it in the context of a FFT (or DCT, as in this case) is obvious. But that's not what they've done here.
It looks to me like they've invented (or discovered) a new transform which is similar to the DCT, and shares many properties with the DCT, but is not simply an approximate DCT. In other words, you'd use this for designing a new video coder in which high processing speed is more important than compression ratio (they take about a 1dB hit in compression, my brain is too fuzzy convert this into percent right now).
The transform has some other interesting properties, such as the fact that the transform and its inverse are in fact exact even when you use limited-precision arithmetic, unlike DCT. This would seem to imply that repeatedly compressing and decompressing aren't going to lead to any quality degradation. Also, it might make for a more efficient lossless coder. Neither of these is a very big deal, but still interesting.
So it looks like what we have is something new, interesting, and primarily useful for video compression in hardware. I don't see a compelling reason why it shouldn't be patentable, and it certainly seems well within the scope of what the current patent system allows. Believe me, I've seen far worse in issued patents.
Lest you think I'm defending the patent system, I'm not. It's badly in need of reform. A very large fraction of issued software patents are simply bad patents. I actually believe that no software patents at all would be better than the current system, although I'm idealistic enough to hope that fixing the patent system to prevent abuses would be even better. I'm just saying that if you're going to pick on an invention, choose a better scapegoat than this one.
Finally, a shameless plug: since the discussion of patents and intellectual property on Slashdot seems to be as misinformed as it is lively, one of the explicit goals for my new site, Advogato [advogato.org] is to host intelligent discussion of these issues. From the discussion so far, I have reason to be encouraged.
Does that include yours? (Score:2)
But of course, none of that matters. By saying that "Poster credibility went boink" you get to feel superior to the average ignorant slashdot reader, don't you?
Re:how so? (Score:1)
This is contrary to what is allowed in Canada, and most of the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:1)
But that's exactly how real science works now! (Score:1)
I have to wonder if this recent trend towards patents isn't because the patent departments seem to be considerbly more gullible than journal referees. Things can be patented that would never make it in a journal
Pythagoras was Greek. (Score:1)
The Egyptians didn't have the Pythagorean Theorem. They only had 3-4-5 triangles made of rope with knots tied in it.
Pythagoras, and his followers, were Greek. They came later.
--Joe--
There are MANY patents on similar IDCT schemes (Score:1)
Re:You like some Marx with that? (Score:1)
If this were the case, then why should I bother to give my hypothetical intellectual property away? Can't you tap this "infinite resource" yourself? Intellectual property is a finite resource -- you don't extract it with drills and smelters, but with time and money. After all, if you're smart enough to think of an idea no one else has, isn't that valuable?
--------------------
Re:You like some Marx with that? (Score:1)
IMO, it is socialist -- in the sense that what's yours can be mine, merely because I need/want it. After all, suppose you'd spent ten years and millions of dollars developing the Magic Water Carburetor. No one else could have done it. The question is, who does the MWC belong to?
Captalist answer: It belongs to You.
Socialist answer: It belongs to The People.
--------------------
You like some Marx with that? (Score:2)
Ah, yes. Share and share alike. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Of course, we'd need a State Science Commitee to oversee this, with State Science Police to benevolently enforce it. What would you do to an enemy of the People who wouldn't share his idea? Re-education? Liquidation?
The patent office should issue Invention-credit certificates or something that says "Look it, I invented this. See give me credit. If you find it useful, I'd like to put food on my plate." - kind of like the old shareware lisence.
They do issue something that lets you eat off of what you invent -- it's called a patent. Unfortunately for your Utopian fantasies, it still allows someone to (shudder) own something.
Just for drill, can you name three things that Scientific Socialism invented?
--------------------
Re:What a surprise! (Score:2)
I'm not prepared to comment on whether this deserved a patent under the existing criteria - because, as you rightly point out, I (like most of the posters here) don't have the background knowledge to do so.
However, I don't believe that it is *right* to patent this kind of thing. I don't believe society benefits from this kind of patent. I believe that patent law should be changed to avoid these patents, and the opportunity for wider re-examination of the patent system taken.
Re:No. Patents should be nearly totally obliterate (Score:1)
I think he would. Most scientists don't do their work with the sole goal of profit in mind. They do it for the love of their work.
Yeah, but the point is, even if he had been willing to do it for free, he wouldn't have been able to. Edison, keep in mind, basically created a prototype for modern R&D processes, according to a basic plan, something like this:
1) Obtain working capital (personal funds, venture capital, etc.);
2) Invest money in researching and developing new ideas;
3) Invent 999 new things (processes, goods, whatever) that are worthless in and of themselves (or unpopular, or impractical, or otherwise flops);
4) Given hard work, a good idea, and a little luck, invent one thing that's revolutionary and instantly valuable to others;
5) Take profits from this one invention and return to step 1.
It is important to notice that the one profitable invention has to subsidize ALL your work.
The point is, without being able to own and realize the profits from your work, your work can't be self-sustaining. Those VC guys that sink money into new startups only do that because they expect to see a profit from it someday--they don't fund research out of the goodness of their hearts. And if the people they fund don't own their own work, and can't profit by it, neither can they. And then what is the incentive to provide seed money to anyone?
Now, don't get me wrong--I think patents of mathematics are silly and wrong. But, there is a reason to protect intellectual property in general--it provides an incentive to inventors to invent, and eventually EVERYONE profits from this...
Re:Poster credibility went boink long ago... (Score:1)
I should point out that, as of this writing, this message was moderated "3: Insightful".
Guess the monkeys threw you a bone, eh?
phil
Use Perl. [OFF TOPIC] (Score:1)
24314
This is for kernel 2.2.14pre16.
Have a nice day!
Integer wavelet transforms (Score:1)
I don't think such things should be patented.
The DCT is an important thing, and shouldn't be ignored, but what about wavelet transforms? Wim Sweldens [bell-labs.com], the CREW [ricoh.com] people and others have looked at integer implementations. Wavelets discussed by the CREW people can be implemented with shifts and adds, as the DCT described above. I haven't heard of any patent problems with JPEG 2000, which will be based the wavelet transform, and will use integer transforms in some cases.
Assuming an omniscient God, then all any scientist is doing is rediscovering knowledge. A patent then is a bit pretentious.
Re:Patents are for hardware...this IS hardware (Score:1)
themel@sophokles:/usr/src/linux > find . -name '*.c' -o -name '*.h' | xargs egrep -e '(>)' | wc -l
17959
That about my kernel, though it's only 2.2.7. Yeah, qualifies for rarely done.
--
"The use of COBOL cripples the mind.
Its teaching, therefore, should be
Re:You like some Marx with that? (Score:1)
Re:offtopic, but... (Score:1)
The Patent System Abused once more (Score:2)
In fact, the patent laws are doing a lot of damage to society in general. As we all know, there is more than one way to get rich, and trying to get rich by hording the rights to mathematical and scientific techniques that are rightfully the property of the humanity is just plain wrong.
The patent system has become a mockery of its former self, has outlived its usefulness, and now needs to undergo some major surgery. We must modify it so that it distinguish between intellectual property belonging to humanity in general, and intellectual property that has been genuinely created, and thus can be owned, for a time, by an individual. If I "find" your wallet on the ground, does that make it mine? No, and if I take it I'm a thief. A government that would enact a law to make finders of wallets the rightful new owners of said wallets would only be acting in the interests of thieves, and it's actions would have to be corrected by right-thinking citizens. If I "find" a mathematical truth, it's not mine either - it belongs to the world, and I'll get my reward by being respected as it's discoverer, not hated as the man who sat on the thing, milked it, and kept it from being widely used and benefiting society for 17 years.
Re:Apparently, you can patent algorithms. (Score:2)
Are you sure about that? Last time I looked into this (many years ago) I looked at Knuth's analysis in the Art of Computer Programming where he convinces himself that there is no efficient algorithm for picking medians such that the worst case does not degenerate to O(n^2), albeit with vanishingly low probability. It was enough to convince me to use some other algorithm in any system where the worst case result could possibly be harmful. Note that merge sort has the same performance as qucksort, though it operates on lists, not arrays.
Re:Apparently, you can patent algorithms. (Score:2)
But the only advantage quicksort has over, say, heapsort, is a better K. They are both O(NlogN). Doesn't this affect K?
Re:The Patent System Abused once more (Score:2)
You missed the point entirely. The question is whether patent law in it's current form is solving a problem or not. Algorithms, mathematical facts, gene sequences, whatnot, are likely never going to be kept as trade secrets, so patent protection is not necessary in these cases.
Hmmp. Good job "batting me down". Did you come here to display your debating skills, or exchange ideas?
Re:The Patent System Abused once more (Score:2)
The original purpose was to encourage inventors to disclose their discoveries instead of keeping them as trade secrets - profit-making is merely the carrot.
Re:The Patent System Abused once more (Score:2)
How can you possibly imagine noone would have invented it, and at rougly the same time, if Edison hadn't? The situation we have now is less a flowering of research and more a greedy gold rush - the gold goes to who gets there first, and who doesn't join the rush, loses. This is precisely analogous to the struggle between open and closed source software - in the end, what benefits society as a whole must surely win - by evolutionary pressure - but the road to that desireable state can be long, twisty and rocky, and for a time, perverse systems like the patent we see today may will hold sway, seemingly impossible to disloge.
Re:The Patent System Abused once more (Score:2)
Yes, and the entire open-source movement must be a figment of my imagination because authors are unable to force end users to pay them licence fees for normal use.
There are many chicken-littles saying that if we defang the patent system, innovation will grind to a halt. Hmm "innovation" - seems to me I've heard somebody using that word a lot lately.
The fact is that innovation does not grind to a halt just because innovators are unable to fence in the intellectual property and extract fees for it's use. That's because there are other ways of profiting from the innovation that do not rely on fees from normal users. For example, you may become famous, and therefore able to join a young, well-financed company that gives you large stock options. Or you may be satisfied simply with the fame. Or you may simply be happy that you have done something well, or useful.
In the open-source world we haven't seen a major application area yet that hasn't been subsumed into the open source model, or is well on it's way. In the games world for example, the best engines are open source, or are derived from open source work. (John Carmack, besides being one of the best problem solvers in the industry, is also one of the best recyclers of publically available technology, e.g., the pre-computed occlusion strategy used in the Quake engines.) Again, using games as an example, the money is made through copyright on artistic content, not by fencing in the technology.
Looks simple enough. (Score:2)
Whether or not it is _obvious_ is an open question, but once pointed, out, it looks pretty simple (as with many elegant algorithms). All he's done is convert the coefficients used in the transform to rational numbers with power-of-two denominators and numerators with few bits set. This makes it practical to use shift-and-add cheats to do multiplication less expensively.
It's important to note, though, that the algorithmic order remains the same. You'll still need, for an n-FFT, order (n log n) operations. Also, your approximations during conversion make this unsuitable for high-fidelity applications (the approximations introduce noise and distortion). This algorithm _would_ be well-suited for embedded applications with a high premium on power and space, as less power and silicon is needed than with full multiplication.
Strength Reduction (Score:1)
Floating point arithmetic is replaced with fixed point or integer arithmetic. Multiplies and divides are replaced with shifts, adds and subtracts. Constants are rounded off to an integral power of two. Complex functions are replaced with lookup tables or simple approximations. The trick is knowing how much can be discarded while still getting acceptable results.
Re:I despair of slashdot and its patent stories (Score:2)
Which is why, of course, I think that current patent law is in error. I thought I made that point clear.
algorithm is still an abstract concept that can be described free of any hardware context and that can be implemented on an abacus, by pencil and paper, on a Babbage machine
And nobody would ever have dreamed of granting a patent to an algorithm's "implementation on an abacus", or "implementation using a pencil". A Von Neumann computing system is simply a general purpose tool, and should be considered just like an abacus for these purposes.
However, since you have only a patent on the implementation, and not the algorithm, I am free to make an improvement in the algorithm, and then use it in any way I wish - and thus escape your patent.
Sorry, but that's simply incorrect. If I make an improvement to LZW or RSA (and this has been done), I still can't use it in a software program. Counter-examples are welcome.
Computers are our main tools for computing algorithms. To grant a patent to the implementation of an algorithm on a ubiquitous general algorithmic device is tantamount to granting a patent on the algorithm itself. Yes, I think the courts really screwed up here.
When calculators were first introduced to the public, nobody thought they could patent the idea of "square roots implemented on a hand-held electronic device", or "using electronic calculators in a store to sum purchases". But that's exactly the kind of thing we're seeing now.
Re:I despair of slashdot and its patent stories (Score:2)
I don't believe that the combination of LZW and a digital computer is a technical advance over the LZW algorithm itself, and I don't believe you can reasonably argue that it is.
If you disagree, let me ask you this. If unisys didn't discover LZW, if they simply found it in a textbook, should they have been allowed the patent?
The new law of tribology is not patentable, but a new lubricant designed to make use of it certainly is. Even if the lubricant is the only possible practical use of this law.
Exactly. But what is software, and more specifically a single algorithm in software. Is it like a developing a chemical or building a machine? Or is it like re-writing the algorithm in a different language? I believe the latter, as do most programmers, and I think the courts got this one wrong. In other words, I honestly don't think of software as a "physical context", or more specifically not a single physical context.
Anyway, I think you misunderstood the "implementation using a abacus" analogy. The courts would have said that the abacus was not a new context for the algorithm. Abacuses rather are general purpose tools for performing algorithms. Stating that "we performed this algorithm on an abacus", or "we performed this algorithm on a computer" means nothing more than "we discovered this algorithm".
How is this really any different to granting a patent on a piece of computing hardware that uses an algorithm in a new manner?
Because you've granted the patent not to *a* piece of computing hardware, but to *all* pieces of computing hardware for all applications. Because a computer is no more an "application of an algorithm" than a pencil is. A computer program *is* the algorithm.
Let me put that another way. Give me a new natural law in tribology. First I type the process into my computer so I don't forget it, then I go out and use that process to build a better car engine. I can patent that. Now give me an natural mathematical algorithm. First I type it into my computer so I don't forget it, then... Wait, I'm done. I haven't "applied" it anywhere. I just wrote it down in algorithmic symbols (like fortran, or C).
And the truth is that this is being more and more understood by the courts, and the precedent is forcing them to simply accept patents for business processes and algorithms. The State Street case pretty much came out and said that.
Re:I despair of slashdot and its patent stories (Score:4)
Here's a good test: give an example of a non-patented software application for lzw where you'd be "perfectly free" to use it. You can't. The basic problem here is that the USPTO and the courts have accepted the idea that software itself is an "application".
But there's such a fine line between the statement of an algorithm in mathematical symbols and the statement of an algorithm in computer language that for all intents and purposes the algorithm itself has been patented. 100 years ago, nobody would have seriously considered a patent for an algorithm's "implementation with pencil and paper", but the USPTO now regularly accepts patents for algorithms "implemented with an electronic digital device".
IAW, if you invented a better algorithm for some common mathematical process 100 years ago, clerks all over the world would use it immediately using the tools at hand, and some might improve it. But today you can effectively prevent that because clerks all use computers, and implementation with a computer is patentable.
Much of the slashdot-type thoughts on software patents come from the way software is viewed. Is software a concrete "thing" like hardware, or is it the virtual manipulation of symbols like math? The public, seeing only the final product, views software the first way, but most programmers see it the second way. The source code is the application; compiling it is only a detail.
Re:No. Patents should be nearly totally obliterate (Score:2)
The utopian society that you suggest doesn't exist. In this day and age of shrinking bottom lines, if paying royalties for using an invention of someone elses becomes optional, then most companies will simply not pay the royalty and gain a few more dollars in profit.
Perhaps is this were a socialist system, where governments would fund inventors of something so they could live and follow their pursuits, your hope could work. But then from everything I've heard, it sounds like that may not be the way to go.
Dumb patents suck. But lots of inventions exist that are worthy of patents. And lots of other things exist that exist only because patents were available to protect them. Inventors still need to be protected... But the patenting system should be competely revamped.
Re:Pythagoras was Greek. (Score:2)
Re:Just name the algorithm after him and move on. (Score:2)
Re:Patents are for hardware...this IS hardware (Score:2)
Re:Patents are for hardware...this IS hardware (Score:2)
Re:Nice Article, Sengan (Score:2)
Irrelevant to what the site is about, and not giving enough info to stop lots of people spouting off in a knee-jerk sort of way on a subject they know nothing about.
OK, I'll grant you the links and lack of editorialising are both good, but the entire story shouldn't be here in the first place.
Just my £0.02
Gerv
Re:No. Mathematical function. (Score:1)
Sherm
Re:No. Patents should be nearly totally obliterate (Score:1)
your intent here is false. newton, as i'm sure you know, was tenured at cambridge. in fact, he held the chair of the mathematics department. if you look at the history of mathematics, you'll see that almost everyone who contributed anything worthwhile had a similar situation -- either at a university or by a wealthy benefactor. gauss, euler, fourier, artin, etc. physicists too.
even those who didn't make a career of it worked for their own enjoyment in their own free time, not for an employer. for instance, fermat.
i don't understand why you would be so critical of the university. it works, apparently. also, they're not all publicly funded you know.
(michaelangleo was a great of science?)
Apparently, you can patent algorithms. (Score:2)
I'm surprised quicksort isn't patented.
Re:I despair of slashdot and its patent stories (Score:2)
Ah grasshopper, I see you have no understanding of patents. Patent claims are NOT separate. Claims are stuctured with the most general claim first, and the following claims are in fact more specific cases. The later claims are in fact called dependent claims. Patent claims are structured in this manner for a variety of reasons, the most important being that if the most general claim is found to be invalid either during application of subsequent legal action, more specific claims may be upheld. Normally when you file a patent you claim the entire sidereal universe as claim one, and work your way down to very specific yet important commercial applications as your later, fall-back claims. Often the structure will fork; that is there will be multiple branches in the tree of claims. In some kinds of patents you may have two or three trees, however those are rare - and generally the patent office makes you didvide those into separate applications.
If you do not infringe on the primary claim, you will in fact be free of infringement of the patent since the dependent claims are special cases.
I despair of slashdot and its patent stories (Score:3)
Let's look at this story from a factual basis (I know it's a bit much to expect from slashdot, but we can try):
Apparently, he has applied for a patent for this approximation.
Apparently is the key word here. The author is engaging in rank speculation and rumor-mongering.
Unfortunately there is no actual text to the application to review, only a speculative statement and a journal publication. What can we say about this from known law?
The first is:
1. YOU CANNOT PATENT A MATHEMATICAL ALGORITHM.
Yes Virginia, despite the wild statements by many contributors to this forum, US Patent law contains a specific provision that includes a ban on patents of mathematical laws and algorithms. There are in fact no valid patents of mathematical algorithms in existance.
This rules out the speculation of the article statement.
2. IT IS POSSIBLE TO OBTAIN A PATENT ON PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF MATHEMATICAL ALGORITHMS
Such cases are well know, such as RSA for encryption applications, and LZW for image compression. THESE ARE NOT PATENTS OF ALGORITHMS, MERELY AN APPLICIATION OF THE ALGORITHM you are perfectly free to use RSA or LZW algorithms in non-patented applications for the algorithms themselves are not the subject of the patent.
If in fact the author is filing an application as speculated by the article author on the approximation, it will be quickly rejected by the USPTO. HOWEVER, if the author is filing on an application of the algorithm to some common problem, say deconvolution of Fourier Transfor Infrared Spectra, then I think there is a good chance that the application will become a patent.
Time will of course show what is the actual case here.
Interview 'em! (Score:5)
Maybe (big maybe) he patented his idea so that it could be used and distributed freely to prevent a company from patenting it and charging licensing fees. Who knows? Certainly, none of us do.
It's worth a shot, in my humble opinion.
Re:Apparently, you can patent algorithms. (Score:2)
Deterministic quicksort is as good as you can get (nlgn running time, n space required) without making assumptions about the data you're sorting.
but these sorts have been around for decades, and anything in public domain cannot be patented (or is that copyrighted, i always forget).
Re:Apparently, you can patent algorithms. (Score:2)
divide array into five-element lists
find the median of each of those lists == O(n) time
recurse
This gets you a good approximation of the median of a list in nlgn time, giving QS a guaranteed running time of O(nlgn).
Let's change the Patent icon for slashdot (Score:2)
I find the icon very appropriate for headlines like "Car salesman granted patent for breathing air", but not for "Legit company sues bunch of assholes for stealing non-obvious patented ideas". Perhaps another more appropriate icon for patents that are not as obviously-ridiculous?
No. Mathematical function. (Score:2)
Re:So wouldnt that include most digital hardware? (Score:2)
The fact that this guy uses a hardware example in his patent application doesn't change the fact that it covers software implementations as well.
Many of the most important mathematical ideas are only ways to speed up calculations.
Patenting Truth (Score:3)
Very useful. The question is, can we viably extend mathematics should this "thing" be patented. This is the same thing we have to evaluate in Artificial Intelligence -- does someone get to benefit from having patents in AI, when in fact, giving these patents out practically undermines any further research in that particular direction, overall inhibiting the growth of that field.
It's not my place to say, but I'm quite sure that this is a very, very bad thing. Look at LZW -- no one really benefited from that patent, but it sure as hell made life very difficult for many, many people. It's fine to patent something if it's a specific end-process, but if it is a *foundation* for furthering a field, then patenting it cause undue harm to the exploration of that field.
So, my opinion is, if this thing is an "end process", as in unable to extend the field further, then it being patented should be of no harm. However, my understanding of this leads me to believe that patenting this thing will hinder the furthering of mathematics.
We cannot afford to put up barriers in mathematics, there is too much to explore, and we know too little, to put up artificial anthropocentric monetary induced barriers.
Re:What a surprise! (Score:2)
Thank god somebody finally pointed out that not everyone here is qualified to make the sort of off the cuff remarks about issues being "obviously" one way or the other.
There's nothing wrong with stating your opinion on an open forum, but all to often on here it starts sounding like a Papal decree or a state of the union address.
More humilty, less vitriol!
Hotnutz.com [hotnutz.com]
Patents are for hardware...this IS hardware (Score:3)
Yes, he deserves a patent
Re:What a surprise! (Score:2)
Reread my posting. You raise precisely my point! "Who are we to judge" a patent application that we haven't seen! NO conclusion may be drawn concerning a patent application based solely on a general understand of the subject matter to which it is related. It may be valid, it may be invalid, and you simply don't have a clue.
Nevertheless, we listen to nothing but vitreol about the patent system, the patent examiners and patent lawyers concerning the "obvious" invalidity of this application. Nonsense.
I would be surprised if there were many patent lawyers on Slashdot who are actually knowledgable about this sort of thing, rather than simply jumping to conclusions.
Precisely what "sort of thing" would you have me be knowledgable about? I did my undergraduate work in applied math, my graduate work in computer science, published software for a dozen years.
Now, let me turn the question around. How long have you studied patent law.
Re:What a surprise! (Score:2)
That's your straw man. Its not what I said. On the other hand, if you want change, its time to do a bit more listening and learning. You can preach to the choir on slashdot all you like, but nothing will be accomplished and you will have learned nothing.
On the other hand, some of our colleagues are offering real knowledge and information about the system. Read up, listen up and think hard about these issues before spouting mere pabulum, and you will in time see change.
Spout the "party line," march in lockstep, and you will be ignored.
Re:The Patent System Abused once more (Score:2)
We must modify it so that it distinguish between intellectual property belonging to humanity in general, and intellectual property that has been genuinely created, and thus can be owned, for a time, by an individual.
That's not a bad idea, but it presumes that the distinction can be drawn. What standard would you use to determine what is a "truth" owned by all, and what is an "invention," for which we want to reward someone for disclosing? If someone figured out a new "law of physics," to capture and manipulate negative energy and worked out the means to build the "warp drive" thereby, do we give him the patent or don't we?
Interestingly enough, the author notes that there is more than one purpose to the patent law even with his own remarks. Had he truly adopted the "original purpose" of rewarding those for disclosure, why would it matter whether the disclosure is that of a "mathematical truth" or a design for the warp drive? Don't we need the disclosure just the same?
In short, these are deep and complex problems. I agree there needs to be a boundary between abstract ideas and patentable inventions, and find myself sympathetic to the statements made by the author. On the other hand, the line is much harder to draw than is suggesting by this posting. It would be nice to distinguish solely between "discovered truths" and "invented notions," but in practice that has always been a difficult problem. The modern test of "anything under the sun made by man" is where things have been drawn. What exactly is the problem with that?
Over the centuries, several tests have been proposed, leading to the one we have at the moment. Perhaps the author will now suggest how we can define his distinction more perspicaciously, so that it can be practically applied, and so we can take this to the next step?
Re:What a surprise! (Score:2)
There is little disagreement on this point in theory. Indeed, the preceding remark is a reasonable statement of law. Recent cases [emory.edu] still hold that "[u]npatentable mathematical algorithms are identifiable by showing they are merely abstract ideas constituting disembodied concepts or truths that are not 'useful.'" The cases agree with your proposition that "to be patentable an algorithm must be applied in a 'useful' way." But distinguishing between the "idea" itself and an implementation is where the real heat lies. Under present cases, all that is necessary is to be able to argue that the claim is directed to a "practical application of a mathematical algorithm, . . . [by] produc[ing] 'a useful, concrete and tangible result.'
So, how would you refine your statement to distinguish the present state of the law?
Re:What a surprise! (Score:2)
Well, my point is not that you don't have the knowledge to do so, but rather than *NONE* of us (myself included) do. Speaking about a patent we haven't seen is foolish -- we are merely speculating what should and should not issue.
However, I don't believe that it is *right* to patent this kind of thing. I don't believe society benefits from this kind of patent. I believe that patent law should be changed to avoid these patents, and the opportunity for wider re-examination of the patent
What "kind of thing"? Which "these patents"? We simply don't know what was claimed. I just applied for a patent on a new trebuchet design. From that statement alone, do we decry the application because it is based on the law of gravity? Until we have seen the patent or the application, we just don't know. We cannot evaluate the scope of your "kind of thing" or "these patents" statements in the abstract. Let's keep it real.
On the other hand, I agree completely that broader reexamination is necessary to avoid the harm of bad patents. I would go futher -- I think the presumption of validity should be relaxed when a patent is challenged for art not considered during examination that raises a substantial new question of patentability.
I think that these proposals would substantially reduce the harm from bad patents issuing, and moreso, would have a fair chance of actual passage in view of recent movements in the Congress. More important, if played right, it could get some of these broader issues on the table. This would be a result I think all slashdotters could get behind.
I am putting together a more detailed proposal on these latter proposals now. I'll be sure to publish it here, if there is any interest.
Re:What a surprise! (Score:2)
1) Educate me. Tell me what I'm missing.
The most fundamental of patent issues: the claim (the numbered paragraphs at the end of the specification) is the thing. The claims determine the entire scope (the metes and bounds) of the patent grant. Unless you look at what is claimed, you cannot say anything important about the scope of a patent.
A claim can be directed generally to well-known art, but have some subtle distinction buried in all those words that makes it patentable (and generally harmless). Patents issue every year or so on paper clips, yet none seriously threaten the marketplace for clips, even though most of the words of the claims are directed to what you would expect in a paper clip.
You can't tell if a patent is good/bad/indifferent without seeing the claims. Knowing only the general subject matter, the title or the abstract is meaningless.
Thus, if you don't have a claim to talk about, you can't answer any questions about whether the patent can or should issue.
2) Tell me what your colleagues have done to improve patent law.
A number of provisions passed this year in the awkwardly entitled "American Inventors' Protection Act." Unsurprisingly opposed by many patentholder lobbies, this bill provided some limited broadening of the scope of third-party patent reexaminations. Also, and most interesting to the present discussion, it provided prior user rights for defendants accused of infringing a patent directed to a method of doing business, if the user had been practicing the method before the patent had issued.
3) Tell me what I can do to improve patent law.
Boy is there a long way to go. But we need to do it in small steps. IMHO, we should: (1) try to further strengthen third party patent reexamination, so that an inexpensive means exists to bring meaningful prior art to the attention of the patent office to take wrongly issued patents out of circulation; and (2) try to weaken the presumption of validity of a patent when a defendant raises new prior art not considered by the PTO, if the new art raises a substantial new question of patentability.
These steps have a chance of passage, and the arguments concerning the impact of bad patents on e-commerce and software arts will begin to get these issues on the table. Far more important, there are existing lobbies (in particular the American Intellectual Property Law Association) who are presently fighting for patent reform.
Re:The Patent System Abused once more (Score:2)
For someone who criticizes others for complete correctness, perhaps you ought to check your history. The first patent Act did not set a 17-year term.
More important, no single pithy statement of the purpose of the Act is likely to be complete or adequate. As often is the case, the truth is far more interesting. The Constitution grants Congress the power to authorize patents to Promote the Useful Arts, and the meaning of this, of course, is subject to many reasonable interpretations. Many "purposes" have been proffered at various times, both in historical documents, legislative history and judicial opinions. Disclosure is certainly one. Incentive to invent is certainly another. Neither is completely right or completely wrong.
With respect to the "I'm a big R&D guy, and I know that this other guy doesn't know nothing" posturing, suffice it to say I know plenty about and have lived in both worlds, and the position adopted by the author is, to be as polite as possible, not the whole story. Over the past 200 years, nations with strong IP have led the world in innovation, engineering and R&D, notwithstanding the "burdens" of their IP systems. Nations with weak IP have, well, written a great deal about the virtues of their science. A fair argument can be made that few would be hired to perform R&D were there no means to protect the fruits of their labor. As noted, the truth is often rather more interesting.
Re:The Patent System Abused once more (Score:2)
Yeah, tell that to Frankston and Bricklin! They got there first, and yet few today, even among this community, know who they are. On the other hand, their creation -- indeed their invention -- made others wealthy, and one of them the wealthiest man in the world. Being first to market assures nothing, particularly without the means to protect a well-earned competitive edge.
So far as the light bulb case goes, I think the argument made here is who would have bothered to perfect an incandescent light bulb if all who saw it could duplicate it with ease? Edison was not, in fact, the first to suggest generating light with electricity -- there was substantial prior art from which he worked to perfect a solution to the problem. Edison's example is a great one -- his was not a seminal, fundamental invention -- his was an excellent overall solution to a problem. He could justify building a lab simply to experiment with and polish the pure science before him, to make a solid, protectible product he could then bring to market.
I can say with confidence that I have seen many fine ideas die on the vine simply because they were unprotectible by patent or copyright. Who would agree to pay a royalty for an unprotectible idea? I would far prefer you deal with my competitor, so that I could copy it and sell it for less, because of my lower overhead.
Re:What a surprise! (Score:2)
The reply: I disagree. The fundamental question is:
Do we want patent law in the realms of mathematics?
This answer is downright silly: (1) without seeing a claim, how can you possibly know what is the subject matter of the patent? (2) How do you define the "realms of mathematics?"
Precisely what are your particular subject matter objections to patents concerning compression technologies on this "pure mathematics" ground? Exactly how does it stop you from the "freedom of doing mathematics without having to be a lawyer."
Please identify a patent infringement single case involving the "freedom of doing mathematics."
With all due respect, to this lawyer/mathematician, your argument sounds more like attempting to "lawyer" away the patent law than to argue for the virtues of pure science.
How could you possibly know? (Score:2)
You simply cannot determine the validity of a patent (or its invalidity) based upon its title, its abstract or even the langauge of its specification. The claim is the only meaningful basis by which such a patent can be determined. Period.
Likewise with respect to the commercial value of the patent.
Re:What a surprise! (Score:2)
Even assuming that your definition of "mathematical patent" is well-defined and that your normative conclusions are accurate, you can say, "hey, it is a mathematical patent," and I could gainsay you on the point, with neither of us being able to agree or not on the question -- because we don't know what is claimed. Both are at present nonfalsifiable propositions. Accordingly, you cannot conclude whether or not the application is worthy of a patent.
Q.E.D.
Without seeing the claims, you can't know . . . (Score:2)
While I agree that the argument, "assuming all software patents are bad, and assuming that the described patent is a software patent, we may conclude that the described patent is bad." On the other hand, "knee-jerk" assumptions about the major hypothesis, and uninformed conclusions about the minor hypothesis, doesn't really make claims to the consequent very interesting.
What is interesting is the following suggestion:
You can't go half-hog on this, you are either against software patents or you aren't - I am disappointed that more slashdot readers don't see this.
Perhaps the writer will suggest why he thinks this is the case? Why can't someone be consistently opposed to the issuance of any proper subclass of software patents? Why can't someone argue to the contrary that "you can't go half-hog on this, you are either against patents generally or you aren't." The reason few readers "see this" is because it isn't an argument at all -- its just a slogan, pabulum for trying to move uninformed masses to a conclusion.
Many of us have more respect for those slashdotters who actually make arguments on behalf of their position, regardless of how they come out. Those who instead prefer to "lobby" to an easy audience are, well, wasting bandwidth.
Think about it, exactly how far do you think you would get trying to make a real change by arguing to the Senate Judiciary Committee, "Look Senator Hatch, you can't go half-hog on this, you are either against software patents or you aren't?"
To be frank, this is the fundamental problem -- an ideological movement that is to make a difference must be founded on more than slogans -- it must have a solid core philosophy, and a strong logical basis for its being. You must persuade not only those who "see this," but those who don't and are willing to listen. You must endeavor to make change -- which means changing minds.
Otherwise, you are not engaging in debate or discourse: you are simply whining.
Re:What a surprise! (Score:3)
Are they? I have read every patent-related article in Slashdot in recent months and have yet to see a single patent subjected to anything close to an invalidating analysis.
While you may enjoy the lawyer-bashing, and the suggestion that we somehow all "dance to corporate marketing jingles," nothing is proved by that. While you are wrong about me, personally, that is wholly beside the point. Even if I were in someone's pocket, how would that make my arguments more or less valid? Why would the ignorance and naivete of the attacks made on the patent system by those who have not studied the law be any more meaningful or correct?
Come off it. No one can reasonably suggest that a person is qualified or unqualified to discuss patent policy merely because he or she is a lawyer. That's just another straw man in defense of the naive attacks. I am suggesting that one who *DOES* attack the patent system should first undertake to learn something about how it works.
Apparently that is too controversial a point to raise in this forum.
What a surprise! (Score:5)
Nonetheless, we have already seen posted here vitreolic remarks suggesting USPTO incompetence, unreasonable conduct by the applicant and general remarks about unnamed "abuses" of a Patent system.
I have obtained and enforced patents for clients, and invalidated patents of others. I know what it takes to meet the tremendous burden of showing a patent is invalid, or even the burden for an examiner to make a prima facie case to refuse a claim. Several remarks made here do not come close, and, to be frank, would appear ignorant and empty to any educated student of the patent law.
Several of use who are fighting the fight for real patent reform have had our battles made more difficult, not less, by the conduct of those who randomly assault the USPTO without cause. Such remarks ultimately (and properly) get ignored, and the Office begins to turn a deaf ear to all arguments made for change -- even when they are sound.
The bottom line is this: some patents are valid, and others are not. The determination is made on the merits -- there either is or is not an adequate specification; and there either is or is not invalidating prior art. The very reasonable news story asked for meat, but regrettably all we have seen thus far are whinings, rejecting legitimate arguments of validity as mere "legalese."
For those of you who have undertaken to educate yourselves about the subject of patents and comment on this subject, I regard your comments and cricicisms highly -- you have taught us a great deal, and even where we have disagreed, I have been both enlightened and educated by the discourse. I hope that in time your colleagues will follow your example.
Re:Patents are for hardware...this IS hardware (Score:2)
Re:Mathematics patents == Bad Idea (Score:2)
Copyright law should be enough to protect this software!
Unlike mechanical aparatus, whose workings are apparent, software's workings are inherently more complicated, and harder to reverse-engineer.
Furthermore- both copyright and patents have durations which are much too long for modern times.
Creation of intellectual property is at an all-time high, and the fact is that future knowledge is based off of current.
THis means that our society is dependant more and more on the sharing of knowledge and ideas and less and less upon production.
(i.e. we are becoming a service based economy)
Patents and elongated copyright durations serve only to inhibit the growth of this industry! I can understand a patent or copyright duration of a decade and a half, but the current copyright regulations are ludicrous! Why extend copyright? (esp. for corporations!)
The only good argument for it (and the reason that these laws were enacted) is to ENCOURAGE invention and the creation of new things.
Patent law is having the opposite effect.
Copyright law is also having the opposite effect.
(i.e. software, the DCMA, etc.)
I think that OSS is the best example of this-
the OSS community is a meritocracy, based upon individual AND group prowess. This sort of organization profits by the share of ideas- one's reputation is made by it. (this is an example of copyright WORKING)
Nice Article, Sengan (Score:2)
Keep up the good work.
Re:What a surprise! (Score:2)
It also sounds like you're trying to milk the system for money while talking about reforming it. Politicians do that dance a lot too. I've hardly ever seen real reform come from someone who benefitted from a system the way it is. Maybe you're a saint and can pull it off, I don't know, but in any case, good luck.
I never *ever* trust someone who tells me to please leave something to experts, especially when they are one of those experts themselves. When that is followed by "please shut up, you're interfering with the *real* work", I get **really** suspicious. This is not to say you may not be right, experts usually are after all, but you'll have to be far more convincing before I believe it on your mere say-so.
Until then, I'll continue to hold my uninformed opinion that mathematical patents suck, thanks.
No. Patents should be nearly totally obliterated. (Score:2)
The patent system is generally abused nowdays and no attention is payed to anything but legalese. IIRC someone several years ago tried to patent the binary counting system and binary math. This should not be.
The patent office should issue Invention-credit certificates or something that says "Look it, I invented this. See give me credit. If you find it useful, I'd like to put food on my plate." - kind of like the old shareware lisence.
#include <signal.h> \ #include <stdlib.h> \ int main(void){signal(ABRT,SIGIGN);while(1){abort(-1)
You like some Gates with that? (Score:2)
And yes I -would- like some Marx with that. I'm tired of American Capitalist Fascism and greed. Profit, by its very nature, means taking more then you give back to the community. In order for you to profit, you have to take more then what you sold was worth, and by marketing, brainwash people into thinking what garbage you have to offer is a life necessity.
A utopia, by definition, is an unatainable goal.
Socialism would work if there was no capitalism constantly trying to break into the socialist markets. Capitalism results in animosity and ecological destruction. Just the world I want to live in.
#include <signal.h> \ #include <stdlib.h> \ int main(void){signal(ABRT,SIGIGN);while(1){abort(-1)
Re:Interview 'em! (Score:2)
Actually, this is a strong possibility. I don't know how JHU does it, but other universities use the patent process to keep important techniques from being locked up or from excessive profit-taking limiting its use. University employees usually have to give up their rights to exclusive patents of their work done while employed by the university -- probably Tran is in the same boat. However, this isn't necessarily a good or bad thing. An example of a Good Thing having to do with patents is probably the "PCR" (polymerase chain reaction) technique which is probably the most revolutionary procedure in molecular biology in the decade. It (rather a critical reagent) is patented, but the patent holders have ensured that it is widely available and not too costly, so researchers everywhere can have access. Yes, they make a buck -- but not too much. Perhaps a very rare example of the patent process in ideal (utopian) use. But that's just my opnion, I could be wrong...
--
Re:Let's change the Patent icon for slashdot (Score:2)
Of course, we also have a logo of Bill Gates as a borg
Patent on the internet is already held! (Score:2)
In a campaign promise yesterday, Al Gore promised that, if and only if he is elected president, he will continue to allow the world to use the internet, despite infringement on his patent.
When questioned about his outlandish claim to hold a patent on all forms of network traffic, Gore looked shocked and stated that "I don't think that the American public will second-guess me after I singlehandedly fixed the Y2K bug!."
Prior Art, Circa 1872 (Score:2)
An interesting fact about mathematics is that all the properties of our reals are a consequence of this definition. While the patent law allows for the patent of discoveries and inventions, mathematics is quite different, for one simple reason: there's nothing new here.
Allowing a patent on a detail of an already-well-known system of numbers allows for impossible legal paradoxes. Assume that y = 6x is patentable. Someone gets a patent, and I decide that I want to get a patent on y = instantaneous rate of change of 3x^2, after discovering that it has some of the same useful properties. Another person comes along and patents the y = the second derivative of x^3, one the same premise.
This seems ridiculous, but the pharmaceutical companies do something very similar constantly in patent cases: they invent similar drugs that use slightly different chemicals. It's not the effect that's patentable, but the exact structure. Mathematics is all the effect of its basic axioms, so there must be no patent on pure mathematics.
Re:No. Patents should be nearly totally obliterate (Score:2)
I think he would. Most scientists don't do their work with the sole goal of profit in mind. They do it for the love of their work. Why do all the Linux kernel hackers work so hard in their work? Becase they love doing it. Just the fact that they exist tends to make your argument patently false.
In this day and age of shrinking bottom lines, if paying royalties for using an invention of someone elses becomes optional, then most companies will simply not pay the royalty and gain a few more dollars in profit.
If some company is going to take someone else's work and make a profit off of it, then I think they should pay a royalty or other form of payment. That is, if the inventor allows their work to be used for profit. Linux is different, because while it allows companies and others to use the technology it forces them by way of the GPL to share any improvements. So, companies are not profiting directly from using Linux. Rather they are profiting from their own value add, be that services or support or custom programming or whatever. I don't think that individuals should be forced to pay royalties or any other form of payment for patented works as long as they don't profit from others by using it.
Perhaps is this were a socialist system, where governments would fund inventors of something so they could live and follow their pursuits, your hope could work. But then from everything I've heard, it sounds like that may not be the way to go.
But my understanding is that a large percentage of patented works do come from work paid for my governments. Universities receive research grants and the scientists who are paid by the universities invent something. Is it right for them to patent those inventions then? They were the direct result of "socialist" funding by the government.
And a followup ..... (Score:3)
What I'm really trying to say here is that it's easy to patent small ideas - but often hard to tell when your patent is being violated. Conversly it's hard to patent big ideas (because it's hard to think up something that's truely revolutionary) - but easy to track down violators. So maybe there is some little justice in the patent world :-)
Yes maybe ..... (Score:5)
Actually I think that this is exactly the sort of thing that should be patentable - he's not patenting the IDCT per-se - he's patenting a particular implementation of it.
This is exactly like patenting a better machine for (say) canning food rather than patenting the concept of canning food, or a new way to sell canned food. This is what the patent system was set up to do.
Having said all that I personally believe that it's become way too easy to patent little stuff, I firmly believe that patents as they were a hundred years ago were a worthwhile concept - I hold a number of patents on my work over the years - none of them come close to the patents that were granted to Edison - back then people patented 'big ideas' not all the little things that we invent day to day to get our work done.
Over the years my various employers have encourage me to patent lots of stuff I've invented - but frankly I'm only really proud of one of those inventions - and much prouder of other stuff I've done (whole chips, big software systems etc) that in themselves are not patentable.
Re:I am registerring the following patents: (Score:2)
In another side deal, I'll let you in on my "conics" patent if you let me in on the trig identities..
---
Re:What a surprise! (Score:2)
You can preach to the choir on slashdot all you like, but nothing will be accomplished and you will have learned nothing.
i apologize. i didn't know that you were as involved as you were in the Hooters, Inc. v Hooters of America, Inc. trademark dispute [carltonfields.com]. obviously i'm underqualified to continue any further discussion on the matter.
- Uberdog
Re:No. Patents should be nearly totally obliterate (Score:2)
Re:Interview 'em! (Score:2)
Re:Patents are for hardware...this IS hardware (Score:2)
Missing some important things.. (Score:2)
1) Patents expire. They expire because their purpose is to make sure that things continue to go forward. Patents are there to encourage people to share information. Expecting that patents (and even abuses) are going to make progress stop in it's tracks is a little ridiculous.
2) Without patents, many innovations of the past may not have been invented, or may not have been shared, so that we can take them for granted today. Having a system where entire categories of patents are restricted/unavailable is a little unreasonable. It seems a little naive to assume that innovation can't happen in just about anything.
3) The USPO doesn't really have an easy job. There is no doubt that some sort of reform is desperately needed, but we don't live in the same world that created that system. We need to look constructivly at recreating a new system, not just bashing the only one we have.
That said, I'd be interested in hearing how people think the patent system should be changed. What would you (or Brian Boytano) do to make it better. It seems to me that a logical place to start would be to simply make the application process more difficult, but what about having a graduated patent process. Lets face it, 17 years is an eternity in today's business. Maybe you should have to invent the wheel, or oxygen to get a 17 year patent, but maybe a patent on an algorythem should default to 5 years, or 1. And of course, to approve a 17 year patent, there would be some serious procedure to go through, including maybe some expert testimony or something, and a waiting period for people to show "prior art" to help prevent a false claim. I really don't know enough about the current patent system to even know if I'm already listing things that currently exist or not (I don't think so though).
I think that he should be granted a patent, and be allowed to profit from his invention/discovery, but I don't know enough about currently used processes to be sure. I don't think that he be granted unlimitted rights though. Some limitations of what kind of royalties he can demand, or the amount of time he gets to hold a patent like this should apply.
Gauss was first (1805) - History and ref. here... (Score:2)
me to
http://www.jjj.de/fxt/fftnote.txt ,
which contains "Notes on the FFT" written by C. S. Burrus.
The note gives a thorough presentation of the FFT algorithm starting
with Gauss
discover a parallel algorithm. The first paragraph of text follows
below, wherin [1] is the reference:
[1] M. T. Heideman, D. H. Johnson, and C. S. Burrus,
"Gauss and the history of the FFT," IEEE Acoustics, Speech,
and Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 1, pp. 14-21, October 1984.
also in IEEE Press FFT Reprints, by P. Duhamel, 1995.
This is a note describing results on efficient algorithms to calculate
the discrete Fourier transform (DFT). The purpose is to report work
done at Rice University, but other contributions used by the DSP
research group at Rice are also cited. Perhaps the most interesting
is the discovery that the Cooley-Tukey FFT was described by Gauss in
1805 [1]. That gives some indication of the age of research on the
topic, and the fact that a recently compiled bibliography [2] on
efficient algorithms contains over 3400 entries indicates its volume.
An expanded version of this bibliography is published as a book [2]
with the references in a data base on a disk. Four IEEE Press reprint
books contain papers on the FFT [3,4,5,6].
Re:You like some Gates with that? (Score:2)
I think you went too far the other direction. I think socialism (and even communism) in its pure form is an admirable goal - BUT ONLY VOLUNTARILY. That's where the major communistic societies screwed up - by forcing people who didn't agree to be a part of their society... and turning into a police state when people didn't agree. It doesn't have to be a system where human rights are violated - it can be a system that affirms human rights... when done right. So far it hasn't. I'm not sure if it can. Human nature, with its greed and arrogance, tends to get in the way and subvert it.
That being said, I also abhor capitalism. Sure, it has some benefits, but at what cost? The loss of individual freedoms as corporations and those who have the money take over the society? No thanks. It's the best we got right now... but I can and do hope for something better.
If you can't figure out how to mail me, don't.