
Google attempting to patent a compression technique in the public domain - andrepd
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20180611/23125540015/hey-google-stop-trying-to-patent-compression-technique-inventor-released-to-public-domain.shtml
======
jwilk
Discussed on HN about a month ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17277830](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17277830)
(212 comments)

------
bobdole12345
They're using it to build codecs they want to remain open source and public,
that means, because the patent system is fucking broken, they need to
defensively patent literally everything they can possibly get surrounding the
technology before a troll slips one through and starts harassing their codec
users.

Because it'll happen, and the FUD will cause their partners to abandon plans
to roll out the new codecs "until this legal cloud gets resolved".

It's not a matter of Google being evil, it's a matter of Google having lawyers
who want to protect the intent of what they're doing.

~~~
gcb0
This is disinformation BS trying to spin the story around.

Yeah, google and everyone else should try to patent everything. But if the
patent office says "this guy invented this first" then it is an a*hole/evil
move to try to fight the little guy for the patent "because they are building
codecs"

They should just concede, pay a symbolic fee, and that will even help the
little guy fight patent trolls because google paying a fee for royalties is
stronger than many legal teams a troll can afford.

instead, see this google quote from [https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2018/06/inventor-says-go...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-
policy/2018/06/inventor-says-google-is-patenting-work-he-put-in-the-public-
domain/) "Google denies that it's trying to patent Duda's work. A Google
spokesperson told Ars that Duda came up with a theoretical concept that isn't
directly patentable, while Google's lawyers are seeking to patent a specific
application of that theory that reflects additional work by Google's
engineers." (how can someone even say that with a straight face?!)

meaning: they are outright stealing it on what they hope is a technicality.
How would they like if IBM patented their video codecs, but in a video
application, because the codec was only theoretical concept? They claim the
patent system is broken but here Google is clearly being the evil actor and
contributing to the problem more than anyone else.

In the end the true message is: "we [google] want everyone to believe they can
use our free codecs without fear of all the patents we have on them, but if
anyone makes the exact same offer, we will not trust them and try to steal the
patents for ourselves"

~~~
dodobirdlord
Google no doubt considers it worthwhile to try exhausting every possible
avenue to seize control of the patent before giving up. This is win/win if
them if their stated intent of protecting their free codecs is to be believed.
Either they end up with the patent or they nail down a rock solid precedent
that everything in their codec is in the public domain. Either way they
achieve their goal of not having to worry about having outside patents filed
on the contents of their codecs.

------
mtgx
The past several years should be remembered as the time when Google has not
only stopped "not being evil" but actually turned towards becoming your
regular evil corp.

Let's do a short recapt:

1) started making Android more proprietary

2) stopped caring about end-to-end encryption

3) started wishing to become a military contractor

4) started abusing its monopoly power in certain markets (already convicted
for one, another coming very soon)

5) stopped caring about free speech of its global users and banned anti-
censorship tools

6) started wanting to go back to China (and compromise with whatever the new
more dictatorial government is asking of them)

7) started hoarding bogus patents, just like Microsoft and IBM, and will
likely soon start using them against competitors, too

8) started pretending to care about user privacy by quietly de-anonymizing
users and tying their searches to their real names and IP addresses

9) stopped fighting for net neutrality, because now _that 's_ what suits it

10) started lobbying against privacy laws

These are just off the top of my head right now. I probably forgot a few.
Google is no longer the bright-eyed company it used to be. Now it's all about
exploiting users and entering whatever business it needs to enter or take
whatever action it needs to take to increase that quarterly revenue.

~~~
maxbond
How likely do people think it is that we'll see another divestiture a la Bell
Telephone with Alphabet and Amazon?

I'm not going to make the case for divestiture, I don't really know what
should be done. It seems to me that the places you'd divide these businesses
are far fuzzier, and the argument that their free or cheap products are
hurting consumers is more difficult to make, but that there is no real chance
of a new competitor challenging them in the market and that liberties
protected by our governments offline are increasingly offered at their
pleasure online.

~~~
chiefalchemist
Short answer: Too long.

Phones were not high tech. Most elected offials (and those they appoint) can
barely use a fax machine, let alone disect and legislate today's status quo.

Furthermore, if you see these companies as a proxy surveillance state - as
anyone reasonable should - then the odds for divestiture approach zero.

~~~
pinewurst
I have to disagree with the “phone are not high-tech” part having worked in
switching systems. Phones themselves are pretty crude implements but the
backend has been very technologically advanced for the last century. Bell Labs
earned their reputation properly.

~~~
maxbond
Without applying a moral judgment ("is/n't high-tech") I think we can all
agree that phone systems were less abstract than the systems Alphabet and
Amazon are operating. The Bell system had clear, regional lines it could be
broken up along, and that was a convenient handle for legislators to grab
onto. It's not clear to me how you could go about breaking up Alphabet, and it
must be very confusing for someone with more of a background in civics than
software.

~~~
chiefalchemist
Thanks for clearing that up. I should have said "relatively low tech." Also,
as you noted, Ma Bell was The Phone Company. I'm not so sure Google is that
silo'ed.

------
bigmit37
All these recent news regarding patents are starting to worry me. Companies
can patent every little idea even if they don’t plan on putting resources to
such ideas and prevent small companies from ever taking off ?

~~~
chrismcb
Technically no, as ideas aren't patentable. But yes companies can pantent
processes that they don't plan to actually produce. Nothing new, been going on
since pantents we created

------
gcb0
For some accountability, both patents list "inventor" Alexander Jay Converse

