
Told to remove blog posts describing patented algorithm - willvarfar
http://sites.google.com/site/redcodenl/
======
SoftwarePatent
IAAPL (I am a patent lawyer), but I am at the very beginning of my career.
Anyway, non-lawyers often are too credulous when they get nastygrams from the
other side. Don't believe everything they say to you! It's amazing what non-
lawyers will believe and do just because they get a mean-sounding email.

That being said, one of the fundamentally unfair things about the legal system
is how expensive trials are. Even if the other side here has no case, they
might be able to haul you into court and run up expenses for you. Maybe you
can become a cause celebre of the anti-software patent blogosphere?

~~~
Ardit20
If they go to court and he does win the case wouldn't the cost of his lawyers
be paid by the loosing side, so, he in that case would not lose anything and
perhaps might even be awarded nominal damages if the other side pursued the
case friviously.

~~~
SoftwarePatent
This depends on many factors. 1) What country the lawsuit takes place in.
Unfortch I only know US law. Here in the US, the factfinder (a lawyer word for
either the judge or the jury) can order legal costs to the winning party under
certain circumstances, but those are rare. I have heard anecdotally that in
Britain legal fees are always paid by the losing side.

------
dtf
Oh dear. I can see the open-source and pirate communities coming down on these
guys like a ton of bricks. I wouldn't be surprised to see a CDDB-style
distributed database and server and accompanying mobile apps up by the end of
next week. Shazam's CTO may well have been better off turning a blind eye.

It's got all the elements hackers love: software patents, an underdog, free
speech and an interesting technical problem.

~~~
jakevoytko
I doubt anything will happen. Stories with similar elements don't usually end
with an underdog victory [1]. If the software was already released, people
could create "I'm mirroring the Shazam code, come and get me Shazam!" blog
posts. The news cycle would have been well-fed, and might have generated
enough hype to cause the Shazam CTO to learn to leave the issue untouched.

However, now someone must develop the code. It'll take time. When it is done
there will only be passing interest in the whole issue. This is interesting
enough that it'll get some action on blogs over the next week, but I don't see
this becoming a long-term win for the original author. Just Shazam and the
blogs.

[1] One example is "How I Got Sued by Facebook".
[http://petewarden.typepad.com/searchbrowser/2010/04/how-i-
go...](http://petewarden.typepad.com/searchbrowser/2010/04/how-i-got-sued-by-
facebook.html) . It combines elements hackers love: the rights to your
information, an underdog, free speech, and an interesting technical problem
(indexing all of Facebook). But no public databases of Facebook user data
sprung up as a result.

~~~
weirdwonka
The reason for that is that people who have capabilities of doing that know
that its not a good thing. The data can be used for re identification attacks
against user privacy.

------
voidpointer
Great example of the problem with software patents. Landmark has a method for
music-matching. They would love to be the only one having access to that
technology. The confusion starts where the patent system is meant to only
protect how their particular implementation matches music and not the concept
of music matching at all. They on the other hand argue, that the method
described by the author is similar to what they have patented - after all, it
uses the same fundamental CS concepts such as hash-table lookups etc...

As other mentioned, the idea with patents was to offer people a limited time
monopoly on their innovations in exchange for publishing them so others could
use/enhance these ideas instead of reinventing the wheel over and over. I have
not seen one instance where this works out for software...

~~~
iuygtfnh
>Landmark has a method for music-matching.

No they have a patent the idea of music-matching, not the implementation.

I could have a patent on the idea of a car that defies gravity - and you pay
up when you actually invent a flying car.

~~~
voidpointer
This is not how it works. In the patent application you have to describe how
your invention works.

In software patents, the implementation is described in such general terms
that a lot of the time, any implementation can be said to use the method
described in the patent. This is my biggest problem with software patents:
once you abstract your solution enough, it isn't of much use to anybody, hence
the value of the patent to the general public is null while it still allows
you to block out competitors that want to find a solution to the same/similar
problem although your patent is of no help to them actually solving the
problem.

It is this skewed relationship that drives me crazy. Licensing a software
patent only allows you to come up with your own solution a lot of the time, it
does not save you the development cost.

If you license a patent for some industrial process it saves you huge amounts
of research cost so licensing the patent is actually attractive.

Software should only be patentable if the patent provides actual value in
solving the problem it claims to solve. Since useable software implementation
are so specific, this may rule out patenting software at all.

~~~
iuygtfnh
Not in the US, although implementation patents are easier to defend you can
write very broad patents.

You can have a business method patent, eg look at the prices charged by
various retailers and buy the lowest one, or even a patent on the plot of a
novel. Both of these have been patented in the US.

Your 'invention' no longer has to be workable for it to be patented nor do you
have to demonstrate a working implementation.

That's the issue with a lot of software patents on things like H264 - the
patent can simply be on the concept of compressing video, you don't have to
invent a particular encoding scheme.

~~~
nkassis
But the law was not intended to work that way. This is why bilski has gone so
far. They were trying to do exactly what you describe and they probably won't
get the patent in the end. The supreme court will probably find some way to
not revolutionize patents by making the decision so specific that only this
case will be affected.

~~~
iuygtfnh
The supreme court decided to let people fight it out in court.

What this means is that patents only work for cartels of large companies
forming a patent pool to keep a technology (eg. H264) to themselves and patent
trolls who have no other business so can't be violating any other patents.

For anyone else - even if you have a patent on a real invention, and can
afford to defend it in court, you are likely to be violating dozens of the
large company's patents (how could you know) and so are going to lose.

------
alextingle
This is nonsense. Publishing the details of a process __cannot __violate a
patent. The patent system was created specifically to enable the public to see
and discuss the latest state of the art. Are these clowns going to try sending
take-down notices to the patent office's web-site next??

(Besides, algorithms cannot be patented in the EU, so it is impossible that
this code violates any patent.)

~~~
hcho
Algorithms can be(and is being)patented in the EU. It is the software you
cannot patent.

~~~
loup-vaillant
Wait a minute: what is the difference between an algorithm and a piece of
software? I don't see any.

~~~
Deestan
There's a massive difference. Here, let me show you:

 _Algorithm_ :

    
    
        Algorithm Maximum
          Input: Two numbers M and N.
          Output: The largest number of M and N.
        
          if M > N, then return M
          else return N
    

_Software_ :

    
    
        // Returns the largest of m and n.
        int Maximum(int m, int n) {
          if (m > n) return n;
          else return n;
        }
    

There. Clear?

~~~
statictype
I'm writing a compiler right now that can compile your _algorithm_ into x86
instructions.

Does your algorithm automatically become software at the time of completion of
my compiler?

Or does it become software only when its compiled down to machine code?

~~~
Deestan
:( I was being silly and ironic. I was actually trying to show that there is
no difference at all.

------
michael_dorfman
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that he is looking at this backwards.

If his goal is not to actually implement the algorithm, but just to discuss or
understand it, he can use the lawyers to his advantage. He's already received
the two US patent numbers, which contain published (and freely publishable)
text describing the algorithm in great detail. And, since the lawyers are
interested in the international implications, it should be simple for them to
provide a list of (or better yet, the full text of) all international patents
granted or applied for.

My point is not that software patents (or patents in general) are good or bad
or harmful or useful. My point is that, for better or worse, a patent
represents an exchange-- the inventor is granted a limited-time monopoly on
the implementation of an innovation _in exchange for publication of the
details._

~~~
willvarfar
didn't the Dutch lawyer say he could get fined? If it's your nuts on the
block, would you have the guts to stand up to them?

~~~
alextingle
He should find a different lawyer.

~~~
ra
agreed

~~~
ANINDIAN
cant we just copy it and post it on a shady website such as 4chan or
something. And then use site like Metaoptimizee.com/qa/ which is a machine
learning Q&A website to publicize it!

------
reader5000
This illustrates one of the major problems with patent law: uncertainty.
Nobody, including the pros, can tell the poster whether the Shazam claim is
legitimate or not. Therefore, under the threat of untold financial penalties,
real or not, Shazam can simply bully whoever they want.

Although I know nothing about European patent law and almost nothing about US
law, here is the relevant US code:

"Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority _makes_
, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United
States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the
term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent," (emphasis added). [1].

It seems to me the issue would be whether writing the code for patented
software constitutes "making" it. Who knows. The patent system is such a joke.

[1] [http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_35_00000271----
000...](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_35_00000271----000-.html)

~~~
iuygtfnh
>it seems to me the issue would be whether writing the code for patented
software constitutes "making" it.

That's the problem with software patents. The patent must be published - that
the whole point. But in software writing down the algorithm is also making an
implementation. It's like the pornography laws that defined looking at an
image on a computer screen = producing an image and therefore equivalent to
being present when the act took place.

------
cduan
If you have US patent numbers, you can get the related European patents either
from either <http://ep.espacenet.com> or <http://www.patentlens.net>. For
example,
[http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patents.html?patnums=US...](http://www.patentlens.net/patentlens/patents.html?patnums=US_6990453#tab_3)
shows related patents for one of the two US patents mentioned.

------
andraz
Patents cannot be used to prevent someone publishing research, source code,
explaining how things work, etc. Infringement happens when the patented matter
becomes part of commercial product, is being used commercially or sold. Not by
publishing either textual description or source code. An example of this is
x264 codec which is perfectly legal (to distribute and work on) even in
countries that happily allow patenting everything under the sun. The
infringement happens when it becomes used as part of the product or service.

Patent system's primary 'deal' with the inventor is "time-limited monopoly in
return for a disclosure of how you did it".

Leaving aside the question on patentability of software and algorithms, I am
sure talking to FFII, EFF and similar organizations might help gathering
traction for a proper pushback.

~~~
billswift
Publishing doesn't violate a patent, but it doesn't require commercial
activity - building your own device, or writing your own software, for your
own use constitutes a violation.

------
frognibble
The LAME MP3 encoder uses technology covered by patents. The LAME developers
distribute the code in source code form only. The developers say that it is
legal to distribute the code because the source code is a description of the
patent and not a working implementation of the patent. See last question at
<http://lame.sourceforge.net/tech-FAQ.txt> for more info.

------
impeachgod
Assholes. I am living in Ukraine, and I am willing to host any patent-
infringing code or documents on my Ukrainian servers.

------
dedward
One take-away from this is this, though:

When it comes to patents - the fact that your software is non-commercial, or
that you invented it independently without knowing about the patents does not
matter.

Unless you can prove you created the infringing work before the original
patent applicants did, in which case you can invalidate and/or take over the
patent, patent rights are fairly absolute, and have nothing to do with
derivative works or anything like that (which is why software patents suck so
much....)

Patents are granted via application, and apply unilaterally, regardless of how
the infringing works were created. The only defences in general against patent
infringement are a)your product does not actually infringe on the patent
because it's different enough and b)attacking the validity of the patent
itself.

Contrast with Copyright, which is granted automatically, and independent
creation of similar works (even identical) is permissible, as long as they
were truly independent and not copying each other.

(This is why clean-room reverse-engineering techniques, where one group revere
engineers the software and documents it's function, and a completely separate
group who's never seen the original work writes new code to those
specifications) work for software when it comes to copyright, but not against
patents.

~~~
fleitz
Even if you could prove such a thing it's still very expensive to do so.

------
vibragiel
I was wondering how to contribute with my bit of pressure. I'm a regular
Shazam user, and was thinking of sending them an email telling that I don't
want to make business with companies that deal with bullies like Landmark
Digital Services, that I'm uninstalling their app (even though I paid for it)
and will be campaigning against it among my friends.

But then I thought Shazam might just be another victim of this messed up
patent system. On the other hand, they're making profit out of it and
favouring and legitimating Landmark Digital Services on the way.

What do you think?

~~~
billswift
According to this comment <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1497450> Shazam
sold the patents to Landmark, which the parent of the linked comment pointed
out is owned by BMI. Shazam deserves any flack it gets and more if those are
true.

------
maurits
Okay, so I am not a lawyer, but I don't get it. One of the most know audio
matching systems is from Kalker and Haitsma, published 2002.
[http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.103...](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.103.2175&rep=rep1&type=pdf)

------
ra
I'm no lawyer but my advice would be to object to the patents in your
jurisdiction (and the US, if possible) by writing to the appropriate local
patent offices. State that their work isn't novel as it's remarkably similar
to your own. If your work is based on "public domain" knowledge (for example
techniques that have been previously published in a book, or on the web), it
is important that you refer to those.

I'd also speak to a different IP lawyer, one who is familiar with software
patents. You shouldn't have to pay for an initial consultation.

EDIT: You could also speak to your local EFF. They'd have better advice.

------
mikeytown2
Reminds me of when I accidentally violated a software patent in less then an
hour. <http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=139913>

~~~
pbhjpbhj
You didn't do it in less than an hour, you did it with your whole careers
worth of knowledge acquisition + 1 hour of implementation.

If as you say your steps were _a priori_ obvious and trivially implemented and
were at the time that the relevant patent was applied for (or relevant
invention made in the US) then the patent is very weak and a citation against
it should be easy to find.

What appears to be the case is that professionals working in the field for a
substantial time were not able to solve the problem easily (eg 2Bdecided's
comments).

In short you should give yourself more credit.

TIL: AVIsynth is a script based video editor.

------
willvarfar
Its _not_ Shazam who are making the fuss though, its Landmark
(<http://www.landmarkdigital.com/about>) who are owned by BMI (the record
company - RIAA?)

~~~
ahi
Shazam sold them the patents.

------
malandrew
I'm not a lawyer and I may be wrong but can't we use the patent vagueness
against itself in a sort of "patent aikido" defense.

It's seems like it would be trivially easy to release this source code given
the way the patent is described.

This source code does pattern matching for audio, sound and music. I looked at
the patents in question. They only discuss this method for use with "audio
files", "audio samples", "sounds", and "music".

However the patent doesn't cover other types of waveforms with changing
frequency and amplitude.

With that in mind, couldn't you just change the language used to describe what
you code does so that in now describes other types of waveforms that are NOT
sound, music and audio?

It seems to me that patent lawyers can either patent the implementation or
they can patent the application of their implementation. Simply changing the
application of the implementation you coded in a weekend would mean that the
patents cited no longer apply to the code he wants to publish.

Also, if these lawyers have never seen the code in question. How are they
going to know you released it if it somehow gets released anonymously?

------
geebee
This is so depressing.

I have to say, the replies from engineers who have spent some time figuring
out how the patent system works have been enlightening and interesting to
read.

But none of this matters unless a well funded group (maybe the EFF, maybe some
businesses who want to challenge this patent) decides to pick up the cause and
fight. There is _no way_ a programmer who coded something in a weekend and put
it on his blog is going to be able to go up against a well funded patent
holder.

The merits are irrelevant, seriously irrelevant.

This is what depresses me so much about the US legal system. While the law
around software patents is absurd, the problem isn't really that software
patents exist per se (1), it's that stupid patents are granted and that it is
brutally expensive in terms of time and money to fight them.

(1) I do consider software patents to be a failed experiment. Sometimes the
implementation is so bad that we can say "tried it, didn't work" even if in
theory it could have been done better.

------
caf
You know, what's kind of interesting about this whole thing is that it sounds
like a case could be made that Shazam themselves are infringing copyrights on
the songs in their database. After all, in order to make the database of
hashes, they had to make a temporary, unauthorised copy of each song
recording.

Similarly, the client-side software makes an unauthorised copy of the music as
it records it from the environment to do the test. This seems like it could be
contributory infringement on the part of the software writers.

Does anyone know if the record companies ever tried to go after them on these
grounds?

------
protomyth
I still wish some congresscritter would pass a law simply stating "if you can
copyright the implementation, then you can't patent it"

------
dpatru
The problem here is that it's too easy to make and use a software invention
once you have a sufficiently detailed description of it (source code). An
analogous situation would be the invention of a new homemade bread. A detailed
recipe of the bread in a cookbook would make it very easy for anyone to make
use of the invention and very hard for the inventor to stop infringement. In
such a case, the law must take sides: either it protects the public's right to
share information over the right of the inventor to benefit from his
invention, or vice versa.

It seems to me that the law sides with the public by forcing the inventor to
choose between patent and copyright. If the inventor chooses patent, his
invention has protection, but the public is free to share information about
it. Indeed, to obtain a patent, the inventor must fully disclose the best way
he knows to make and use the invention. On the other, hand, if the inventor
chooses copyright, his particular expression is protected, the public is not
free to share it (republish it), but the underlying ideas behind his invention
are not protected.

So for instance, a musician could patent his unique method of strumming a
guitar and he could copyright his music recordings and explanations of his
strumming method, but has no way of preventing public discussion generally of
his strumming method. His invention does not mean that there can be no more
learning and innovation in the field of guitar strumming.

Similarly, a software maker can copyright his expression (source and object
code) of his work, and patent the use of his work, but he cannot (should not)
prevent public discussion of his work generally.

To hold otherwise would mean that intellectual property (IP) holders could
stop all learning and progress in the areas in which they hold their IP. But
the purpose of IP is exactly opposite. The US Constitution says that Congress
shall have power "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts by
securing for limited Time to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to
their respective Writings and Discoveries." (US Const., Art. 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 8)

~~~
russell
IANAL, but I would hazard that you are wrong on nearly all points. There are
very specific rules on the form of a patent application. It used to be/may
still be that you had to include stylized drawings of a machine that
accomplished the function. Ten thousand pages of code wouldn't cut it.
Generally the patent is abstracted from the actual machine. A couple of the
problems with software patents is that the abstraction is too great and the
claims are too broad. It's the claims that trip up future developers.

The musician example is pretty much bogus, because method patents have been
pretty much disallowed, though there is a movement to get them accepted.
Method/process patents would bring all innovation to its knees.

Also a misconception about copyright. You can have a copyright without
publishing the code, although if you publish it without a copyright, it may be
in the public domain. Code copyright is used as a defense against duplication,
not innovation.

> Similarly.. Yes indeed.

------
cjbprime
Irritating. The patent tradeoff is disclosure in exchange for monopoly, and
Landmark's pretending the disclosure part doesn't have to exist.

------
koenigdavidmj
You could always link to the patents, since they describe the process in so
much more detail.

------
srparish
Andrew Tridgell's talk on patent defense could be useful for him to read:
<http://news.swpat.org/2010/03/transcript-tridgell-patents/>

------
joshfraser
lots of companies send nastygrams like this even if they have no intention of
following through with legal action. it costs them nothing (except reputation
on HN) and there's a good chance the recipient will get scared and give in
without a fight.

there are important issues on the line here and it makes me sad that so many
people feel like they need to walk away because of the possible legal
expenses.

i know it's easy for me to say this as i've never been sued myself, but for
once, just once, i'd like to see someone fight back against something that is
so clearly wrong.

------
borisk
Letters say nothing about description, the CEO only wants the code out.

BTW I thought there are no software patent laws in EU or EU member states.
Just USA and Japan were on the road to insanity some time ago.

~~~
ComputerGuru
Read the last letter. It says clearly that his description of the algorithm in
the blogpost is in violation of the patent laws.

~~~
borisk
"While we trust your good intentions, yes, we would like you to refrain from
releasing the code at all and to remove the blogpost explaining the
algorithm."

It doesn't say directly the description is a problem. IMHO it's the whole
blogpost, because it contains code.

------
wazoox
I'm pretty sure you could release the code copyright and the code to the FSF,
and let it go. I think it's important to struggle against software patents,
now more than ever!

------
pier0
"why are they targetting me and not the already published implementation of
Dan?"

Probably because Dan didn't title his article Creating Shazam in Java

------
kljensen
Patent +applications+ cannot be infringed.

------
ANINDIAN
WTF Just write at end your implementation:

License: Research Purpose Only

Any patented invention can be used for research pupose!

To quote from wikipedia: A patent being an exclusionary right does not,
however, necessarily give the owner of the patent the right to exploit the
patent.[13] For example, many inventions are improvements of prior inventions
that may still be covered by someone else's patent.[13] If an inventor takes
an existing, patented mouse trap design, adds a new feature to make an
improved mouse trap, and obtains a patent on the improvement, he or she can
only legally build his or her improved mouse trap with permission from the
patent holder of the original mouse trap, assuming the original patent is
still in force. On the other hand, the owner of the improved mouse trap can
exclude the original patent owner from using the improvement.

Add few new features

~~~
jjs
> _Add few new features_

Or devise some novel features that would allow this marvelous invention to
interoperate with existing software!

Then patent the combination and fuck them with it. >:D

------
mkramlich
welcome to the inane world of software patents

~~~
loup-vaillant
Remember Paul Graham's words: "One thing I do feel pretty certain of is that
if you're against software patents, you're against patents in general."
<http://paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html>

I made up my mind, and currently, I think the _whole_ patent system should be
abolished.

Some may think we should be safe if software patents are abolished, but we're
not. Make a bit of Arduino based hardware that happen to infringe a patent,
and you're screwed. In short, patents are hampering the rise of Free Hardware,
just like it does Free Software.

It is past time we examine the effects of patents rigorously, or listen to
people who have.

~~~
nudge
How would you encourage the development of new pharmaceuticals (the process of
which costs vast, vast sums of money and can take decades) if, as soon as the
new drug is done, anyone can come and just copy the formula?

I'm not pro-patents on everything, but pharmaceuticals is a case where the
patent bargain seems to produce benefits in terms of drugs that otherwise
might not be developed.

~~~
loup-vaillant
Your argument assumes that you _need_ some kind of artificial encouragement to
make the development of pharmaceuticals thrive.

 _Against Intellectual Monopoly_ [1], shows rather strong empirical evidence
to the contrary: drug development thrived before patents arrived, and didn't
accelerate after. They may even have slowed down.

Your argument is appealing, but most probably wrong.

[1]:
[http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfi...](http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/againstfinal.htm)

~~~
nudge
I'm willing to accept I'm wrong, but could you answer my point so I know
exactly how it is that I am? In particular, exactly how is it that the large
upfront R&D costs I mentioned would not be a problem in a patent-free world?

Also, I wasn't assuming any kind of 'artificial encouragement'. I was talking
about firms spending hundreds of millions of dollars researching drugs, and
wanting to earn that back (and, obviously, more) through patent protection.
There's nothing artificial about the kind of encouragement that comes from
wanting to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars.

~~~
loup-vaillant
I didn't address that point because that point is irrelevant. I am not
interested in the well being of a particular pharmaceutical firm. I am
interested in the well being of the _whole field_. And I suspect, so are you.

It looks like you think that for pharmaceutical to thrive, it needs
corporation to be "encouraged" to invest lots of money. You also seem to think
that patents are a major provider of that encouragement. If so, the
introduction of the patent system should have accelerated innovation.

Empirical evidence shows that it didn't.

I see only 2 explanations: either patents are not an effective encouragement
(compared to already existing ones), or their disadvantages nullifies the
additional encouragement.

~~~
nudge
Please just explain how it is that you think we would get new, expensive-to-
develop drugs, if there were no guarantee of a limited monopoly for the
inventor.

Forget the abstract arguments about corporations being "encouraged" or
whatever you think I think. Just tell me how it would work.

If it helps, imagine that you run a pharmaceutical firm, and you have the
choice to spend hundreds of millions of dollars researching a drug which, once
perfected by your researchers, is not owned in any sense (even temporarily) by
you, but rather immediately becomes a generic commodity worth fractions of a
cent per unit, and which cannot possibly earn you back the money you spent
developing it. In that situation, would you start the research? And if not,
where will the new drugs come from?

~~~
loup-vaillant
> Just tell me how it would work.

Ha ha, that's the beauty of it: I don't know. I just know it works. I know it
from a source[1] which I consider reliable. And that source presented
empirical observations which strongly support my view.

You keep talking about how it _would_ work, doing what's amounts to a thought
experiment. That's valuable, but not nearly as good as actual observations in
assessing how the world works.

From the dawn of humanity, the Sun has been observed to rise from a direction
and set to a roughly opposite direction. Why? How? For a very long time, no
one knew. But only a fool would contradict that observation just because what
he _thinks_ of the sun doesn't fit what everybody _sees_.

In short, when your view of the world doesn't fit the observations, update
your view of the world.

Now, I see very few ways in which you could still disagree with me: (1) You
think I misreported my source. (2) You don't trust my source. (3) You know of
very strong evidence which support your view and not mine. So which it is?

[1]: Against Intellectual Monopoly

~~~
nudge
Alright, if you don't know how it _would_ work, but you do know how it _does_
work, tell me how it _does_ work.

What countries are you talking about, what years, what drugs? How _did_ the
companies cover the cost of research? What was in it for them? Why did they do
it?

I am perfectly willing to amend my views but so far you have done nothing but
say you have evidence. Show me! I don't have time to read your source but I am
happy to read what you quote as relevant.

~~~
loup-vaillant
> I am happy to read what you quote as relevant.

Ah, now we're talking. So, chapter 9, page 247
<http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/imbookfinal09.pdf>

""" You may wonder why we are offering all these details about specific
countries, patenting of chemical processes, and pharmaceutical products. For a
very simple reason: if patents were a necessary requirement for pharmaceutical
innovation as claimed by their supporters, the large historical and cross
country variations in the patent protection of medical products should have
had a dramatic impact on national pharmaceutical industries. In particular, at
least between 1850 and 1980, most drugs and medical products should have been
invented and produced in the United States and the United Kingdom, and very
little if anything in continental Europe. Further, countries such as Italy,
Switzerland and, to a lesser extent, Germany, should have been the laggards of
the pharmaceutical industry until recently. Instead the opposite was true for
longer than a century."""

I fear you would have to read "all these details about specific countries" if
you want anything more substantial. That's 7 pages (from 241 to 247).

~~~
nudge
Interesting, but not very convincing. The argument concerns historical periods
when the costs of research were not nearly as high as they are now. As your
own source rightly points out:

"the total cost of bringing a new drug to market [is] around $800 million, in
year 2000 dollars... [T]his figure suggests a spectacular increase in the cost
of innovating. This increase is due, mostly, to the capitalization of the
longer and more expensive clinical trials the FDA requires."

It may well be that patents were not always necessary for drug development. It
is lazy thinking to conclude from this that they are not necessary now.

~~~
binaryfinery
Simple explanation: patents and the FDA represent barriers to entry for new
competitors. Costs going up just means more money spent within the industry,
and more profit to be taken later. Costs (and profits) going up are a
consequence of patents and regulation, not the other way around. Remove
patents and regulation and watch costs plummet.

~~~
loup-vaillant
Well, we could remove patents, but removing (or lightening) regulation may be
a bit more tricky: you wouldn't want Big Pharma to release something that's
more a poison than a medication.

~~~
binaryfinery
And how has regulation changed this? What extra laws do we need in place to
make sure companies don't kill people other than "dont kill people"?

~~~
loup-vaillant
> And how has regulation changed this?

I don't know. Nor am I aware of any study which shows regulation's effects, or
lack thereof. I'm just saying that if regulation has benefits, they should be
compared to the drawbacks before we forfeit them. If it has no benefit, of
course get rid of it.

Anyway, as I said, I don't know a thing about pharmaceutical regulations. If
you do, a few pointers would be welcome.

------
sswam
The basic technique they are using, to generate a Fourier transform and
distinctive signature from a segment of music, and look it up in a hash, is
completely obvious. It should not be patentable. The gory details of their
algorithm might be patent worthy (although I don't like patents at all). But
Roy did not use their algorithm, he invented something similar. Greedy trolls,
hate.

It might be a nice idea to integrate music identification with CDDB I think.

Google has a similar system that they are using to prevent the use of
copyright music in youtube clips (and they also have patents for their
method). I suppose many other systems exist to do the same things. Roy should
publish his code. Death to trolls.

------
ANINDIAN
cant we start <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect> effect?

------
ANINDIAN
Create a Fake Email address and post it on a Posterous blog. And then we will
take care that it is found out for perpetuity! Also we can try to destroy his
page rank by making reference to his name!

~~~
ANINDIAN
Any way you are currently on second page of Google Search! Better Post it on a
.in Indian Web Address Patent laws in india do not allow software patents + no
one gives a shit about C&D!

------
ANINDIAN
Please some can someone with good knowledge of proxies and etc post it one
4Chan or Posterous or similar site and then post it as Question on
<http://metaoptimize.com/qa/>

Which will get the word out to practitioners in this field ! I currently cant
do that since i am on a *.edu ip

