Each inventor must sign an oath or declaration that includes certain statements required by law and the USPTO rules, including the statement that he or she believes himself or herself to be the original inventor or an original joint inventor of a claimed invention in the application and the statement that the application was made or authorized to be made by him or her.
How is Google+Co the original inventor?
ps. hot today reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/6uuqcd/google_...
 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obvious...
 - https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.2540
Good reference on this patent:
Claim one: none of the transform block stuff etc. is new. The only thing added is:
> processing a binary flag or bit using the Boolean ANS decoder to generate an output value for the binary flag or bit using the ANS state; and
>processing a token using the symbol ANS decoder to generate an output value for the token using the ANS state;
That's just slotting existing ANS implementation as a module. Other entropy encoders were used in that exact stage prior to this.
The other claims 2-8 just add on ANS optimizations that aren't video specific whatsoever. Things including using a bytestream instead of a bitstream.
If any of those were a significant invention by the filee (I'm not going to rule that out, someone please chime in if there was one), why didn't they also patent their application to the entropy encoding stage of image encoding? Or the entropy encoding stage of all sorts of other compression applications?
I haven't read through all the others below claim 8, they look similar with the main variation being using instructions stored in "non-transitory memory" (hardware decoders), but there might be something more video-specific there.
As before, it is still illegal to file for a patent you did not invent without the inventor's consent.
For example, it's perfectly okay to patent an idea in use a thousand years ago, nowadays, as long as most people in that field haven't heard of it; thanks to recently truly perverse judicial decisions.
(This isn't too say other companies don't pull the same shit; fuck them all just as much)
It shouldn't really be a high bar!
Also, until you see the patent app, you don't really know what they are patenting exactly.
In this case it took a while to figure out the smart thing, and it took 10 minutes to find an application to patent.
I worked for a company that probably infringed on an existing telecom patent that was more or less equivalent to looking in another sock drawer if you can't find a matching sock, but as it was related to "an apparatus or method" for "locating subscriber registry data" it was apparently novel enough to require a patent.
It took me about 1 minute to come up with the solution as an obvious solution to a simple problem so it was clearly just rubbish.
The patentee had about 2 million other patents, so if someone had actually cared we could potentially have infringed on several more patents and run out of money long before we could win.
Google is doing what it has to to protect itself. Blame the system.
Sure, a land-grab model, but the frontier was not fair to everybody, and in fact was pretty harmful depending on your politics.
Sounds dramatic, but today it seems like he had a point. The other guy (guarding Wikipedia against self promotion) has a point too, though.
#72 280 points 6h Poland's oldest university denies Google's right to patent Polish coding concept
(had to scroll to middle of 3rd page)
(and it's #1 on Algolia 24hs top)
Makes sense, perfectly explainable.
As I understand the US patent system, patent trolls can and do make these sorts of patent filings all the time, and the legitimacy doesn't matter, because their victims can't afford to defend themselves in court.
Isn't it irrational not to file patents like these?
Or is Google planning to use this patent "offensively?"
Your interpretation is one of the plausible scenarios here. It's one in which Google wins, whether they are granted the patent or not. The Polish researcher and his university don't agree, but perhaps they have never been on the receiving end of a patent lawsuit. Yes, I'm very, very jaded.
So you believe that a company as powerful as Google deserves more consolidated power.
No, thanks.I will stick with the possibility of getting sued by a troll than handing that power to Google.
The fact that you'd rather have a troll own it than Google is literally retarded. That's like advocating you'd prefer North Korea have nukes than the US, because the US already has too much power.
Why would you rather be sued in real life over a theoretical fear? Is absurd.
You are attacking the player, not the game. Software patents shouldn't exist. But in reality they do, and as of this moment I would much rather Google own the patent than a troll.
Especially behind real inventors' back.
You can't just dictate your own distorted ethical vision just because you are too big.
Edit: plus I don't even give a shit if they limit their use of this patent to defend themselves against competitor claims. Clearly even in this limited case this patent still would have (a very good) value, so at least propose the REAL inventor to patent it and sell ultra limited right for that purpose for a few millions. Then this would be kind of ethical.
(That's where you realise emojis lack a pinky finger, that could become google's logo).
Not if he is your boss and just fired you.
It is not unlike the Cloudflare banning some crazy right wing website recently and publicly claiming it dangerous for a company to become the online arbiter for speech, while the CEO behind the scenes is sending memos how it was his decision and just something he wanted to do etc.
I think it a pretty common pattern for the perpetrators to claim officially to very much against the things they might be accused of. Some of that might even work at the unconscious level. And I think corporations also have a kind of unconscious mind (all the unwritten rules, culture and hidden incentives).