

Tandberg attempts to patent x264 open source algorithm - av500
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/589

======
ig1
Tandberg was acquired earlier this year by Cisco, if anyone has any Cisco
contacts it might be worth bringing this to their attention as Cisco may not
be aware of this as it happened prior to their acquisition.

Cisco HR peeps have been quite active in the UK developer community recruiting
for Tandberg recently, I'll forward this to one of them to see if can get some
attention.

~~~
shorbaji
I work for TANDBERG (now a part of Cisco) and I've dropped a note to Lars, the
"inventor" in the patent. I certainly would like to hear the other side of the
story and will share it if I get it.

~~~
jcromartie
What "other side" is there, if it's a step-by-step description of x264?

~~~
sbt
Well apparently one side is the mob

------
meta
If the implementation was indeed taken, it might be a dangerous mishap/black
eye against their community reputation. It appears that Tandberg relies
heavily on Opensource for at least one of their other products. Gstreamer and
Tandberg video: [http://gstconf.ubicast.tv/videos/case-study-tandberg-and-
gst...](http://gstconf.ubicast.tv/videos/case-study-tandberg-and-gstreamer/)
It appears (given they were invited to a gstreamer conference) that they have
been getting along with that project so maybe this was a one-of mistake?

edit: make myself clearer

------
JVerstry
"35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to
patent. A person shall be entitled to a patent unless (a)the invention was
known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed
publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the
applicant for patent, or ... (f) he did not himself invent the subject matter
sought to be patented"

Even if Tandberg were granted a patent because the USPTO missed the
information provided in the post, it would not stand in court.

Such information should be communicated to the USPTO to have them kill the
application during examination.

Case closed.

~~~
gnubardt
Were it granted, the patent would still be a threat, even if it wouldn't hold
in court. Organizations that can't afford the legal fees to retaliate against
a patent suit are often forced to settle.

------
kjetil
Norwegian news site digi.no picked up this story and have a statement from
Tandberg. Tandberg claims that their invention is different from what's in
x264 and that they invented it before x264 the referred code.

Google translated link:
[http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&h...](http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digi.no%2F856986%2Fanklager-
tandberg-for-video-patentjuks&act=url)

------
dfranke
It's unfortunate this wasn't noticed seven weeks ago. The application was
published August 7. The public comment period runs for two months afterward.

------
stefanve
That is freaking bizarre, curious about the follow up on this. I think someone
is about to loos his job

~~~
oiujhygtyhuji
No need - lying on a patent application is perjury.

And it's a federal court - remember not to drop the soap in the shower!

~~~
prodigal_erik
This waste of carbon isn't worthy of scrubbing Knuth's toilet, and I'm all for
drumming him out of tech for life. But our neglect of security in prisons
isn't funny.

~~~
jrockway
But software patents are bad so this one guy deserves all the blame! Not his
bosses who pressured him to do it, not the system that set up a framework for
claiming ownership of ideas... no, this is _all_ his fault, and it's worse
than murder! Death penalty!!!

</sarcasm>

~~~
palish
Stab him with parenthesis! Smash his fingers in a Turing machine!

~~~
mahmud
Samurai swords are not cutlery. Reserve parenthesis for seppuku!

------
moondowner
Another prove that software patents should be abolished.

~~~
jrockway
By similar logic, copyright should be abolished because someone plagiarised
their final English paper?

People will always abuse any system, but that doesn't mean the system should
be taken away from everyone else. I don't like software patents, but this is
not a software patent issue. It's an "intellectual dishonesty" issue -- taking
credit for someone else's work.

~~~
wtallis
The problem is that it was worth Tandberg's effort to put together and submit
this fraudulent patent application. Enough applications like this get granted,
and later go unchallenged or get upheld, that Tandberg had a reasonable
expectation that they would get a patent to extort money out of somebody or
scare competitors out of competing with them.

Software patents need to be harder to get, easier to overturn, and there need
to be steep incentives to not submit invalid applications.

~~~
prodigal_erik
We need USPTO to somehow bear consequences for the harm they're doing to the
industry. Reviewed applications are counted towards the "production" of an
examiner but approvals later overturned by a court are not counted against
them. As long as they only have incentive to rubber-stamp basically anything
or risk dismissal, that's what they'll do.

~~~
sulla
USPTO seems overwhelmed. I would rather see penalties for patent owners where
their ability to create new patents is slowed or revoked if any of the patents
they own are invalidated.

~~~
RexRollman
I suspect that the USPTO is more interesting in collecting fees than they are
in vetting patent applications.

------
lwhi
I dislike the patent system, and I also dislike dishonesty - but could it have
been possible that the person accused might have stumbled across the same
solution independently?

~~~
sili
If the person came up with the solution on his own, wouldn't he patent it in
full including the missing piece that the author checked in only later?
Without that piece, the solution does not work.

~~~
DarkShikari
No, it works -- that was just an extra optimization.

------
sili
I would imagine that this patent could be easily invalidated using prior art
argument, the only down side is all the wasted effort and legal fees to fight
the battle.

------
plist
The norwegian link clearly states that they have documented their algorithm 7
months before it was released from x264. If this is true, there is definately
nothing to see here...

~~~
stuinzuri
They _claim_ to have documented it internally. Garrett-Glaser has publicly
documented his case. Any blind faith in the accuracy of Tandberg's response is
not shared by me.

------
antimatter15
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited
Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries." - Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United
States Constitution

~~~
astrange
This is a pandering quote which everyone already knows and not really a useful
comment at all.

~~~
wtallis
I don't see how the quote was relevant given that there is already plenty of
evidence that will defeat the patent application, but it seems like very few
people actually know the constitutional basis for intellectual property laws.

Even here on HN, I've seen posts from people who think patents are intended as
a reward for inventors, rather than an incentive to invent. Under US law,
inventors and writers do not automatically _deserve_ exclusive rights - those
rights are granted only as a means to encourage progress.

------
sulla
Given that there was the possibility of a 'three-strikes' provision for
copyright abusers in ACTA, there should at least be a discussion about
penalties for patent owners that makes it so the owner can no longer file any
patents if a certain number of patents are invalidated.

~~~
nickpinkston
I love it - but the patent-anything crew (IBM, Intel, etc.) would throw all
their money at that. Maybe at least a percentage of total patents after the
first 10 invalid ones, or something similar?

