# TiVo awarded patent related to commercial detection



## drebbe (Apr 11, 2012)

US Patent Issued to TiVo on April 9 for "Method and an apparatus for determining a playing position based on media content fingerprints"

ALEXANDRIA, Va., April 9 -- United States Patent no. 8,417,096, issued on April 9, was assigned to TiVo Inc. (Alviso, Calif.).
"Method and an apparatus for determining a playing position based on media content fingerprints" was invented by Amir H. Gharaat (Menlo Park, Calif.), James M. Barton (Alviso, Calif.) and Mukesh K. Patel (Fremont, Calif.).

According to the abstract released by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office: "A method for determining a playing position of media content based on media content fingerprints is described. In an embodiment, the playing of an advertisement may be detected by determining that one or more fingerprints of media content being played are associated with an advertisement portion of the media content. In an embodiment, an advertisement may be detected by identifying the persons associated with the faces in the advertisement portion of the media content and determining that the identified persons are not actors listed for the media content. In an embodiment, the advertisement may be enhanced with additional content pertaining to the product or service being advertised. In an embodiment, the advertisement may be automatically fast-forwarded, muted, or replaced with an alternate advertisement. In an embodiment, only a non-advertisement portion of the media content may be recorded by skipping over the detected advertisement portion of the media content."

The patent was filed on Dec. 4, 2009, under Application No. 12/631,775.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=8417096.PN.&OS=PN/8417096&RS=PN/8417096


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

So, Tivo is finding a way to detect commercials based on facial recognition software? What happens if one of the actors happens to be a spokesperson for the product in the commercial? Seems like a roundabout way of commercial detection, but hey, if it works, more power to them. I'll be curious to see how this pans out.


----------



## drebbe (Apr 11, 2012)

mr.unnatural said:


> So, Tivo is finding a way to detect commercials based on facial recognition software?


The patent application was filed in 2009 so for all we know the work has long since been abandoned. I share your skepticism on the approach. I was looking to see if a "Rube Goldberg" was listed as a co-inventor.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Probably just another thing to sue Dish over.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

wmcbrine said:


> Probably just another thing to sue Dish over.


Sounds about right. I think Tivo just files patents on anything they can think of just to keep their competitors from using it. If they do, then Tivo gets their lawyers involved to sue them for copyright infringement.


----------



## moedaman (Aug 21, 2012)

mr.unnatural said:


> Sounds about right. I think Tivo just files patents on anything they can think of just to keep their competitors from using it. If they do, then Tivo gets their lawyers involved to sue them for copyright infringement.


The patent system is so screwed up. I feel that if you don't show up to the patent office with a working product, your application should be thrown out. Just think of how many patents science fiction authors could apply for!


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

moedaman said:


> The patent system is so screwed up. I feel that if you don't show up to the patent office with a working product, your application should be thrown out. Just think of how many patents science fiction authors could apply for!


These days you can apparently patent an idea or a concept without having to produce an actual working product. You probably just have to provide enough details to prove that your idea is actually viable.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

They're only using faces of actors as an example. They could almost use anything for a "finger print". One common technique I can think of is bug detection. On almost all programs there is a station logo in the lower right of the screen that goes away when the commercials start. That bug could be used as a "finger print" to determine when commercials start.

That being said I've done a lot of research in this area and there is no full proof way to detect every commercial break. A combination of black detection, bug detection and audio volume detection seems to be the most reliable, but that's still not 100%. You might also be able to look at captions, since they are now required by law on all content here in the US, but caption sync is a bit of a problem so I'm not sure how reliable that would be.


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

I don't know about patents, but I've been playing with the "comskip" program on my linux box (downloaded and built from source) and it is fantastically accurate with no manual intervention on my part (at least for the Doctor Who episodes I recorded from BBC America).


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Yeah, the tech is already out there. It's the legal part that is keeping TiVo waiting to actually do it. Imagine how they could advertise that as a key differentiator from cable DVRs!!


----------



## tomhorsley (Jul 22, 2010)

I always thought a good way to do it would be with a "social network". People who just happen to share their own custom list of times relative to the beginning of a program that should be edited out. TiVo wouldn't be doing anything but enabling individuals to share their custom edits, and those custom edits wouldn't actually have to be for commercials - shucks folks might want to share their edits of sports center that remove all the scenes of horrific broken legs (to pick a random example).


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

That wouldn't work because the broadcasts from different regions have slightly different time stamps. Plus you'd have to account for padding, clipping, signal loss, etc...


----------



## replaytv (Feb 21, 2011)

I don't know why Tivo is wasting time on such work. It bankrupted ReplayTV, is that what TiVo wants to be, another bankrupt company that only a odd bunch of reactionaries use any more?


----------



## andyw715 (Jul 31, 2007)

Dan203 said:


> They're only using faces of actors as an example. They could almost use anything for a "finger print". One common technique I can think of is bug detection. On almost all programs there is a station logo in the lower right of the screen that goes away when the commercials start. That bug could be used as a "finger print" to determine when commercials start.
> 
> That being said I've done a lot of research in this area and there is no full proof way to detect every commercial break. A combination of black detection, bug detection and audio volume detection seems to be the most reliable, but that's still not 100%. You might also be able to look at captions, since they are now required by law on all content here in the US, but caption sync is a bit of a problem so I'm not sure how reliable that would be.


I think VideoReDo application does a great job for this.

Prior to my main PC taking a dump, I would set it up to autmatically transfer a tivo recording to my machine, start a job that would have VideoReDo remove the commercials, then push the recording back to the TiVo.

I don't think I ever got a content removed from a recording. Everyonce in a while I would get a commerical that slipped through though.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

replaytv said:


> I don't know why Tivo is wasting time on such work. It bankrupted ReplayTV, is that what TiVo wants to be, another bankrupt company that only a odd bunch of reactionaries use any more?


The issues were legal. Charlie Ergen is clearing the path for TiVo, ironically enough, considering TiVo patent trolled Ergen.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Bigg said:


> The issues were legal. Charlie Ergen is clearing the path for TiVo, ironically enough, considering TiVo patent trolled Ergen.


If by "patent trolled" you mean a small start-up company proving in court that their patented technology was knowingly stolen by a much larger competitor, then yes. But I don't think anyone really uses the term that way.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

andyw715 said:


> I think VideoReDo application does a great job for this.


We're working on making it better. Right now it only detects black. We're planning on updating it to take into account audio and possibly other things like bug detection.



nrc said:


> If by "patent trolled" you mean a small start-up company proving in court that their patented technology was knowingly stolen by a much larger competitor, then yes. But I don't think anyone really uses the term that way.


I have to agree here. Dish took possession of a TiVo prototype, held on to it for a while, and then told TiVo "never mind we made our own". They didn't just accidentally violate TiVo's patent. They specifically reverse engineered TiVo's prototype. The patent suit was the only way TiVo could fight back.

Some of the other companies they've sued may have actually developed their own technology that just happened to run afoul of TiVo's patent, which might be considered tolling. But Dish blatantly ripped them off and deserved to get sued.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

nrc said:


> If by "patent trolled" you mean a small start-up company proving in court that their patented technology was knowingly stolen by a much larger competitor, then yes. But I don't think anyone really uses the term that way.


The only argument against "patent trolling" you can make is that TiVo actually makes a product, and most patent trolls don't. Other than that, it was trolling a ridiculous patent against DISH through a broken system. What's next a patent of putting peanut butter and jelly together?



Dan203 said:


> I have to agree here. Dish took possession of a TiVo prototype, held on to it for a while, and then told TiVo "never mind we made our own". They didn't just accidentally violate TiVo's patent. They specifically reverse engineered TiVo's prototype. The patent suit was the only way TiVo could fight back.
> 
> Some of the other companies they've sued may have actually developed their own technology that just happened to run afoul of TiVo's patent, which might be considered tolling. But Dish blatantly ripped them off and deserved to get sued.


Clearly, it is rocket science to dump digital video on a hard drive and read it back.  TiVo was an obvious step, they just took some computer hardware and threw a nice GUI on it.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Bigg said:


> Clearly, it is rocket science to dump digital video on a hard drive and read it back.  TiVo was an obvious step, they just took some computer hardware and threw a nice GUI on it.


Pretty easy today - not so easy to do it all in realtime _with_ affordable late '90s technology.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Jonathan_S said:


> Pretty easy today - not so easy to do it all in realtime _with_ affordable late '90s technology.


Still a good example of a broken patent system, but what else is new?


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Dish ripped them off, plain and simple. They were in talks to do a deal, TiVo gave them a prototype in good faith, and then dish just stole the hardware design and did it themselves.

Also just because something seems obvious after the fact doesn't mean it's not patentable. There are a ton of "obvious" ideas that are patented. Netfix has a patent on their queue, Amazon has a patent on "one click" purchasing, and Gemstar has a patent on electronic programming guides. The whole purpose of patents is to protect ideas, no matter how simple they seem after the fact or how easy to copy.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Dish ripped them off, plain and simple. They were in talks to do a deal, TiVo gave them a prototype in good faith, and then dish just stole the hardware design and did it themselves.
> 
> Also just because something seems obvious after the fact doesn't mean it's not patentable. There are a ton of "obvious" ideas that are patented. Netfix has a patent on their queue, Amazon has a patent on "one click" purchasing, and Gemstar has a patent on electronic programming guides. The whole purpose of patents is to protect ideas, no matter how simple they seem after the fact or how easy to copy.


You mean the patent system is broken because of those examples of completely ridiculous patents that were granted?


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Bigg said:


> Clearly, it is rocket science to dump digital video on a hard drive and read it back.  TiVo was an obvious step, they just took some computer hardware and threw a nice GUI on it.


You've just rendered all your comments on this topic irrelevant because you clearly don't understand what TiVo patented or why it's important.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> You mean the patent system is broken because of those examples of completely ridiculous patents that were granted?


No. At the time they were filed those ideas were unique. They may seem obvious now, but at the time the patents were filed the ideas were unique and gave a competitive advantage to their respective companies. If we don't allow even the simplest ideas to be patented then big corporations, with all their resources, will simply steal all the good ideas for themselves and it would be almost impossible for a startup to make it.

Sure patents are abused by some people. Just like all systems are abused and manipulated. But in the grand scheme of things I still think the patent system, as-is, is better then nothing.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> No. At the time they were filed those ideas were unique. They may seem obvious now, but at the time the patents were filed the ideas were unique and gave a competitive advantage to their respective companies. If we don't allow even the simplest ideas to be patented then big corporations, with all their resources, will simply steal all the good ideas for themselves and it would be almost impossible for a startup to make it.
> 
> Sure patents are abused by some people. Just like all systems are abused and manipulated. But in the grand scheme of things I still think the patent system, as-is, is better then nothing.


Much of the patent system is ridiculous. All software patents should be eliminated, as should all business process or process patents. I kind of see it for some mechanical devices, but even then, it's a tough sell.


----------



## ufo4sale (Apr 21, 2001)

Bigg said:


> Much of the patent system is ridiculous. All software patents should be eliminated, as should all business process or process patents. I kind of see it for some mechanical devices, but even then, it's a tough sell.


If you go with that line of thinking then there is no motivation to create something that doesn't exist if there is no way to protect yourself.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

ufo4sale said:


> If you go with that line of thinking then there is no motivation to create something that doesn't exist if there is no way to protect yourself.


Software can be copyrighted. It should not be able to be patented, because it makes no sense. Business processes just shouldn't be patentable at all. That doesn't really make sense either.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Software can be copyrighted. It should not be able to be patented, because it makes no sense. Business processes just shouldn't be patentable at all. That doesn't really make sense either.


The cod itself can be copyrighted, but that doesn't protect the functionality of the software. If you come up with software that does something truly unique, that has never been thought of before, a copyright wont protect you from someone simply reverse engineering it and releasing another product that does the exact same thing. Patents do.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> The cod itself can be copyrighted, but that doesn't protect the functionality of the software. If you come up with software that does something truly unique, that has never been thought of before, a copyright wont protect you from someone simply reverse engineering it and releasing another product that does the exact same thing. Patents do.


That's why software shouldn't be patentable. It has opened up a whole can of worms that shouldn't be there for software.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> That's why software shouldn't be patentable. It has opened up a whole can of worms that shouldn't be there for software.


How is designing something unique in code any different then designing a new chemical combination for a drug? Both are patentable, as they should be. If it weren't for the patent system no one would spend the money on R&D because as soon as they released something new there would be a dozen other companies who'd just rip them off and undercut them. Patents help progress by giving companies exclusive rights for a limited amount of time so that they can recoup their R&D costs.

Now are they sometimes abused? Of course. But I still think it's better then the alternative.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

I think this would be outstanding functionality to implement... I am not sure why all the negative posts!

Can you imagine being able to watch a recorded show directly from your TiVo and it automatically fast forwards through (or skips) the commercials? 

Oh, I can do this with video redoo... So what You have to download the show, run it through whatever process you have set up and then re-upload to show.... I can do it too, but like most - I don't.

The question is, will TiVo actually implement this functionality? 

If you asked me a few years ago I would have said unlikely - I think they would have been worried about litigation from the content owners, but the Hopper seems to be blazing that trail.

I am still a little concerned that the relationship with MSO's might keep the functionality from being implemented - but I suppose they could disable the capability from the MSO version of the software.

I want it - I encourage TiVo to continue being creative... And when they find something unique, they should patent it and profit from their investment.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> How is designing something unique in code any different then designing a new chemical combination for a drug? Both are patentable, as they should be. If it weren't for the patent system no one would spend the money on R&D because as soon as they released something new there would be a dozen other companies who'd just rip them off and undercut them. Patents help progress by giving companies exclusive rights for a limited amount of time so that they can recoup their R&D costs.
> 
> Now are they sometimes abused? Of course. But I still think it's better then the alternative.


Software is like a book. You can't patent a type of book. You can copyright what you write. Software patents are a nightmare, and should be completely eliminated. Code would still be protected by copyright.



bradleys said:


> I think this would be outstanding functionality to implement... I am not sure why all the negative posts!
> 
> Can you imagine being able to watch a recorded show directly from your TiVo and it automatically fast forwards through (or skips) the commercials?
> 
> ...


I doubt the MSOs would have an issue with it- if anything it would be a big competitive edge for them.

TiVo can't patent commercial skipping, as it's already been done.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

Bigg said:


> Software is like a book. You can't patent a type of book. You can copyright what you write. Software patents are a nightmare, and should be completely eliminated. Code would still be protected by copyright.


That's not really true. Video games are kind of like books or movies and would probably be sufficiently protected by copyright. However most software is utilitarian in nature and designed to preform a specific task, so it's more like a physical invention. A copyright only protects the physical code, not the functionality of that code. If you want to protect the actual functionality then you have to get a patent.


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

Bigg said:


> TiVo can't patent commercial skipping, as it's already been done.


Agreed, but you can patent a unique mechanism for identifying commercials - as this patent appears to do.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

bradleys said:


> Agreed, but you can patent a unique mechanism for identifying commercials - as this patent appears to do.


Or to pull an example from the dawn of powered flight - you can't patent airplanes banking, but you can patent a unique mechanism to make them bank. As the Wright Brothers did with their wing warping patent. Then many people worked around it by using ailerons for roll control.

(Of course it was messier than that, since the Wright Brothers repeatedly sued because of some IMHO overly broad claims in their patent - basically laying claim to all additional, unspecified, methods of manipulating some or all of an airplane's wings in order to achieve lateral roll control)

And in that case ailerons turned out to be a more useful design than what was described in that original patent.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> That's not really true. Video games are kind of like books or movies and would probably be sufficiently protected by copyright. However most software is utilitarian in nature and designed to preform a specific task, so it's more like a physical invention. A copyright only protects the physical code, not the functionality of that code. If you want to protect the actual functionality then you have to get a patent.


BS. You shouldn't be able to monopolize a functionality, as long as someone else does it without stealing your code.



bradleys said:


> Agreed, but you can patent a unique mechanism for identifying commercials - as this patent appears to do.


That's the problem with our BS patent system. The more and more I think about it, the more I think we should just get rid of the darn thing!


----------



## bradleys (Oct 31, 2007)

I wonder... If you spent years of time and money pouring yourself into a unique idea - and when you were finally ready to present it to the world all the big boys said.... yeah good idea we can do that too!

All your time, all you effort, all your passion and investment and someone else gets rewarded for that work.

Yeah your correct, lets get rid of the patent system - makes no sense.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

bradleys said:


> I wonder... If you spent years of time and money pouring yourself into a unique idea - and when you were finally ready to present it to the world all the big boys said.... yeah good idea we can do that too!
> 
> All your time, all you effort, all your passion and investment and someone else gets rewarded for that work.
> 
> Yeah your correct, lets get rid of the patent system - makes no sense.


Exactly! Without patents the big companies would just steal all the best ideas for themselves and small companies would never be able to get ahead.

This happened to my father when he was about my age. He was a parts manager for a Toyota/Mazda dealership. He came up with some sort of booklet that made it much easier for his guys to find part numbers. (before everything was computerized) It was actually so useful he started making them for the other dealers around town and started a small business from it. A year or so later Mazda corporation found out about it and told him that were interested in doing a deal with him. However he hadn't patented the idea and as soon as they found that out they just stole his idea and started producing them on their own. The rest of the manufacturers followed shortly after and his business went under. Now it's his fault he didn't patent the idea, but if there were no patent system at all then this sort of thing would happen constantly. Every little inventor with a great idea would just get steam rolled by a bigger company with more money.

I know that they can be abused, but for the most part patents are intended to protect the little guy. Without them there would be almost no incentive to develop a unique idea again and progress would stall.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> Exactly! Without patents the big companies would just steal all the best ideas for themselves and small companies would never be able to get ahead.
> 
> This happened to my father when he was about my age. He was a parts manager for a Toyota/Mazda dealership. He came up with some sort of booklet that made it much easier for his guys to find part numbers. (before everything was computerized) It was actually so useful he started making them for the other dealers around town and started a small business from it. A year or so later Mazda corporation found out about it and told him that were interested in doing a deal with him. However he hadn't patented the idea and as soon as they found that out they just stole his idea and started producing them on their own. The rest of the manufacturers followed shortly after and his business went under. Now it's his fault he didn't patent the idea, but if there were no patent system at all then this sort of thing would happen constantly. Every little inventor with a great idea would just get steam rolled by a bigger company with more money.
> 
> I know that they can be abused, but for the most part patents are intended to protect the little guy. Without them there would be almost no incentive to develop a unique idea again and progress would stall.


A system which is comparable to nuclear war and MAD does NOT protected the little guy. It makes it impossible to be the little guy. In today's world, companies have to have massive patent portfolios to release many products, as no matter what you do in many product categories, you will infringe a ton of ridiculous patents. But it's OK if you have a zillion patents of your own that your competitors are infringing, as you can just sit there on the brink of war and know that you're safe because of MAD. It also drives up the value of large companies just for patent portfolios, so that a big part of M&A is patent portfolios, not the actual business. Patents are a rotten and corrupting influence, and stifle innovation.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

And without them there would be no incentive to innovate because every new idea would immediately be ripped off and there would be no way to recoup R&D investment. Why spend money on R&D when you can just wait for someone else to invent something and then just rip them off? And why spend money on R&D when you know everyone else is just going to rip you off and undercut you? It's a huge catch 22.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> And without them there would be no incentive to innovate because every new idea would immediately be ripped off and there would be no way to recoup R&D investment. Why spend money on R&D when you can just wait for someone else to invent something and then just rip them off? And why spend money on R&D when you know everyone else is just going to rip you off and undercut you? It's a huge catch 22.


Copyright.

The current system sort of accidentally ended up favoring only the super massive players who have a big enough patent portfolio such that MAD protects them from actually having to follow the rules. Because if you actually follow the rules, it's effectively impossible to do anything.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

And how would you prove copyright infringement on software? Code is compiled. You could use a different compiler to compile the same exact code and the bits would be different. Even minor changes in the optomization settings could change the bits enough to make it indistinguishable when compiled. Copyright is fine for protecting things like books and movies because they are visual and people can see when they are the same. Code doesn't work that way. Someone could decompile my code (easy with managed languages like C# and Java) ripp off my ideas and start selling it at a lower price causing me to lose business and potentially make it impossible to recoup even the R&D investment I made to write the software.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> And how would you prove copyright infringement on software? Code is compiled. You could use a different compiler to compile the same exact code and the bits would be different. Even minor changes in the optomization settings could change the bits enough to make it indistinguishable when compiled. Copyright is fine for protecting things like books and movies because they are visual and people can see when they are the same. Code doesn't work that way. Someone could decompile my code (easy with managed languages like C# and Java) ripp off my ideas and start selling it at a lower price causing me to lose business and potentially make it impossible to recoup even the R&D investment I made to write the software.


If there's evidence, you subpoena for the actual source code, and compare it or whatever. Just because it's hard to enforce isn't an argument for tying it up with only the largest of companies because you're working in an analogy of nuclear war.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

You make it sound like only big companies can get patents. If I came up with a unique idea that had never been thought of before I could get a patent on it. And if someone tried to rip me off I could sue them for damages. This MAD thing only applies when two big companies, with huge products, that have overlapping patents.


----------



## wmcbrine (Aug 2, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> And how would you prove copyright infringement on software? Code is compiled.


Well, there's a whole other can of worms. Personally, I think that copyright is all about encouraging publishing, _with the expectation_ that what you publish will eventually enter the public domain. As such, you should get to keep your trade secrets, or get to enjoy copyright -- but not both. In other words, no copyright without human-readable source code.

Of course, this makes me an extremist, in a world where the most powerful copyright holders like to use the term "intellectual property", and pretend that copyright is a natural right, instead of the incentive to publication it was designed as.


----------



## Dan203 (Apr 17, 2000)

That's why I think we need patents. Most software has a specific functionality and is more like a physical invention then a book, movie or song. As long as that functionality is completely unique then I think you should be able to patent it.


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> You make it sound like only big companies can get patents. If I came up with a unique idea that had never been thought of before I could get a patent on it. And if someone tried to rip me off I could sue them for damages. This MAD thing only applies when two big companies, with huge products, that have overlapping patents.


Only big companies have enough warheads, I mean patents, to stop other big companies from firing them, I mean suing.

The fundamental issue is that so much ridiculous, simple stuff gets patented that in many cases, you can't make basic products without violating hundreds of patents. Hence the need for a giant patent collection so that you can "infringe" on other patents as you need to and not get sued for it.



wmcbrine said:


> Well, there's a whole other can of worms. Personally, I think that copyright is all about encouraging publishing, _with the expectation_ that what you publish will eventually enter the public domain. As such, you should get to keep your trade secrets, or get to enjoy copyright -- but not both. In other words, no copyright without human-readable source code.
> 
> Of course, this makes me an extremist, in a world where the most powerful copyright holders like to use the term "intellectual property", and pretend that copyright is a natural right, instead of the incentive to publication it was designed as.


That's a good point. That would also make it obvious is someone had violated the copyright of others' code.



Dan203 said:


> That's why I think we need patents. Most software has a specific functionality and is more like a physical invention then a book, movie or song. As long as that functionality is completely unique then I think you should be able to patent it.


That's ridiculous.


----------



## SnakeEyes (Dec 26, 2000)

Bigg - So what you're saying is me, the little guy, should be able spend all my time, money, effort coming up with software that does something new and unique but then never recoup that investment because once I release the software a big company reverse engineers my code and creates software that does the same thing?

Because without patents that's exactly what happens.


----------



## nrc (Nov 17, 1999)

Bigg said:


> Only big companies have enough warheads, I mean patents, to stop other big companies from firing them, I mean suing.


You're arguing this in a forum dedicated to a small company that has repeatedly sued large companies for stealing their patented technology and won.



> The fundamental issue is that so much ridiculous, simple stuff gets patented that in many cases, you can't make basic products without violating hundreds of patents.


This is true. But the solution isn't to eliminate the protection that patents give to true innovators. The solution is to demand a higher standard for what is really a new idea or invention. The solution is to change the way patents are collected, sold, and used for what amounts to extortion.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Bigg said:


> The fundamental issue is that so much ridiculous, simple stuff gets patented that in many cases, you can't make basic products without violating hundreds of patents. Hence the need for a giant patent collection so that you can "infringe" on other patents as you need to and not get sued for it.


That more of an issue in area where the technology is rapidly changing; unlike a copyright (which can last for 95 years or more) a patent is "only" good for 20 years from initial filing.

Eventually even crap patents (like the ones for <common everday thing + 'on the internet'>) expire and nobody has to worry about them again. Of course it would be better if such patents weren't issued in the first place (like nrc said about "demand a higher standard for what is really a new idea or invention") but at least they don't clog things up forever.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

wmcbrine said:


> Well, there's a whole other can of worms. Personally, I think that copyright is all about encouraging publishing, _with the expectation_ that what you publish will eventually enter the public domain. As such, you should get to keep your trade secrets, or get to enjoy copyright -- but not both. In other words, no copyright without human-readable source code.


That's an interesting idea. I have to think that one over.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

nrc said:


> You're arguing this in a forum dedicated to a small company that has repeatedly sued large companies for stealing their patented technology and won.


No, it's a large company that has repeatedly sued giant companies. 'Big difference.



nrc said:


> This is true. But the solution isn't to eliminate the protection that patents give to true innovators.


In reality there is little or no such protection.

Even in theory there is no such protection. The patent owner and the inventor are usually not the same person, and the inventor has few, if any rights.



nrc said:


> The solution is to demand a higher standard for what is really a new idea or invention. The solution is to change the way patents are collected, sold, and used for what amounts to extortion.


The real solution is to separate the rights of the inventor / author / artist from the right to distribute. That patent / copyright owner should be entitled to royalties on the distribution of any product, irrespective of who or what engages in the distribution. On the other side of the coin, no one should be able to prevent any individual or company from distributing a product.

Finally, copyright / patent infringement should not be a civil matter. It should be a criminal one. Any company - large or small - that infringes on a copyright or patent should face the full force of the U.S. government's judicial system. The onus of defending the patent or copyright should not fall on the inventor / author / artist.


----------



## lrhorer (Aug 31, 2003)

Dan203 said:


> You make it sound like only big companies can get patents.


For the most part, only big companies can defend their patents, which amounts to the same thing.



nrc said:


> If I came up with a unique idea that had never been thought of before I could get a patent on it.


At great personal cost, with absolutely no guarantee of recouping a single cent. If the defendant has deep pockets, the plaintiff will without fail eventually run out of funds and be forced to drop the suit or at least settle for a comparative pittance.

Arguably the most lucrative patent in all of history was the telephone. Literally trillions of dollars have been derived from it. Elisha Gray, backed by the huge resources of Western Electric filed suit against Alexander Graham Bell to try to make Bell's patent invalid. Legally, Gray did not have a proper basis for most of his suits. That did not prevent him from hounding Bell nearly to the point of bankruptcy. Of course, in the end, Bell won, and his company, AT&T, now is one of the largest corporations on Earth.

Meanwhile, there are those who argue Gray is the proper inventor of the telephone.

And if someone tried to rip me off I could sue them for damages. This MAD thing only applies when two big companies, with huge products, that have overlapping patents.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Bigg (Oct 31, 2003)

SnakeEyes said:


> Bigg - So what you're saying is me, the little guy, should be able spend all my time, money, effort coming up with software that does something new and unique but then never recoup that investment because once I release the software a big company reverse engineers my code and creates software that does the same thing?
> 
> Because without patents that's exactly what happens.


The little guy often can't do anything now, as he/she would be at risk to be sued by big patent holders, since it is nearly impossible to do anything without violating some nonsensical patent that someone holds. Only the big guys can play now, since they have massive portfolios, and can use those portfolios to avoid getting sued, i.e. MAD.



nrc said:


> You're arguing this in a forum dedicated to a small company that has repeatedly sued large companies for stealing their patented technology and won.
> 
> This is true. But the solution isn't to eliminate the protection that patents give to true innovators. The solution is to demand a higher standard for what is really a new idea or invention. The solution is to change the way patents are collected, sold, and used for what amounts to extortion.


TiVo is effectively a patent troll, the only reason that they aren't fully a patent troll is that they actually do ship a product. Their patents were ridiculous, and are a caricature of the broken American patent system. It's sad that Charlie Ergen was subjected to TiVo's games, but at least I'm glad that he strung out TiVo for a while.



Jonathan_S said:


> That more of an issue in area where the technology is rapidly changing; unlike a copyright (which can last for 95 years or more) a patent is "only" good for 20 years from initial filing.
> 
> Eventually even crap patents (like the ones for <common everday thing + 'on the internet'>) expire and nobody has to worry about them again. Of course it would be better if such patents weren't issued in the first place (like nrc said about "demand a higher standard for what is really a new idea or invention") but at least they don't clog things up forever.


Copyright should only be maybe 10-20 years. Copyright has a purpose, but not the Mickey Mouse copyright law that we have today. The original goal of copyright was for the author to get a good return and then give it to the public domain, which doesn't currently happen.


----------

