Hey Google: Stop Trying To Patent A Compression Technique An Inventor Released To The Public Domain

from the being-evil dept

For the most part, Google has actually been one of the good guys on patent issues. Unlike some other Silicon Valley companies, Google has long resisted using its patents to go after others, instead only using the patents defensively. It has also fought for patent reform and experimented with new models to keep its own patents out of the hands of patent trolls. But it's been involved in an ongoing fight to patent something that an earlier inventor deliberately released into the public domain, and it reflects incredibly poorly on Google to keep fighting for this.

A Polish professor, Jarek Duda, came up with a new compression technique known as asymmetric numeral systems (ANS) years back, and decided to release it to the public domain, rather than lock it up. ANS has turned out to be rather important, and lots of companies have made use of it. Last summer, Duda noticed that Google appeared to be trying to patent the idea both in the US and around the globe.

Tragically, this happened just weeks after Duda had called out other attempts to patent parts of ANS, and specifically said he hoped that companies "like Google" would stand up and fight against such attempts. Three weeks later he became aware of Google's initial patent attempt and noted "now I understand why there was no feedback" on his request to have companies like Google fight back against attempts to patent ANS. In that same thread, he details how there is nothing new in that patent, and calls it "completely ridiculous." Despite noting that he can't afford to hire a patent lawyer, he's been trying to get patent offices to reject this patent, wasting a bunch of time and effort.

While a preliminary ruling in Europe appeared to side with Duda, accepting his evidence of prior art, Google is still fighting against that ruling and is continuing its efforts to patent the same thing in the US. This is getting new attention now after Tim Lee at Ars Technica wrote about the story, but it's been covered elsewhere in the past, including getting lots of attention on Reddit a year ago and Hacker News soon after that.

Google's response to Lee at Ars Technica are simply ridiculous. First, it claimed that Duda's invention was merely "a theoretical concept" while it is trying to patent "a specific application of that theory that reflects additional work by Google's engineers." But if you read through the analysis by many people who understand the space, that doesn't appear to be the case. There's very little that appears "new" in the Google patent, or non-obvious based on what Duda and others had already disclosed.

Google's second response is even more nonsensical:

"Google has a long-term and continuing commitment to royalty-free, open source codecs (e.g., VP8, VP9, and AV1) all of which are licensed on permissive royalty-free terms, and this patent would be similarly licensed."

While that's true, that's no excuse for locking up what's in the public domain and promising to treat it nicely.

The thing is there is simply no reason for Google to continue down this path. Again, the company has almost never been an aggressor on patents preferring to use them defensively. And it can still do that here -- by just pointing to the public domain to invalidate anyone else's attempt to patent this. The fact that Google is being slammed in various forums over this (and has been since a year ago) should have clued the company in to the fact that (1) this isn't necessary and (2) harming its own reputation with engineers just to secure a patent it doesn't need is not a good idea.

Google has tons of patents. It doesn't need this one. If it really thinks that its own invention here goes beyond what Duda did -- and Ars Technica notes that Google ignored multiple requests to explain what is different in its patent application -- then the company needs to be much more transparent and upfront about what is different from Duda's work and the company can just as easily release the same information to the public domain as well. Yes, that would be giving up on one patent, but Google can survive donating a patentable idea to the public domain if it actually has one.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    Rekrul, 13 Jun 2018 @ 11:17am

    If it really thinks that it's own invention...

    "it's" = "It is"

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Rekrul, 13 Jun 2018 @ 11:21am

    It's no surprise that they're doing this. Since Google no longer has any live humans at the company and everything is now run by AI, it simply dedicated that this somehow benefited the company.

    And if anyone wants to dispute that Google is now run by soulless machines, I dare you to post any email address, forum or other contact method that will put you in touch with an actual human being.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2018 @ 11:29am

    Oh look

    Look at Masnick Google shilling and just supporting Google no matter... oh, wait...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2018 @ 11:32am

    Masnick just couldn't resist starting this with some light Google nut tickling.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2018 @ 11:33am

    it claimed that Duda's invention was merely "a theoretical concept" while it is trying to patent "a specific application of that theory that reflects additional work by Google's engineers.

    Just like doing it on a computer and doing it on the Internet takes so much engineering effort that it is the favorite trick of patent trolls.

    /s,just in case our favorite trolls sarc meters are broken.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. icon
    James Burkhardt (profile), 13 Jun 2018 @ 11:45am

    From the making-your-opponents-point-dept.

    The general problem people have with patents is highlighted in Google's commentary. Under current software patent rules the 'theoretical idea' (aka the core math that explains ANS) has been considered patent worthy. And in fact that concept is true in Patents in general. Explain the process behind windshield wipers and you own that process. Any application of that process. A specific application of the windshield wipers is still covered by the windshield wiper patent. But Google, in the application, due to obfuscating language and the difficulty of avoiding the Alice decision, is effectively claiming the use of ANS in video compression. That's like claiming that the specific case of the wiper process on the Back window is a specific patent.

    Without specific code, or an explanation of what this does technically that is radically new (something they are legally supposed to explain anyway for patent protection), it appears a generic application for ANS. And the fact that Google is unwilling to show news outlets the distinctions that they need to publicly demonstrate for patent protections kinda proves that it is nothing more than what Duda claims.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2018 @ 12:02pm

    yet another bunch of greedy assholes!! always want something for nothing, yet almost impossible to contact and never want to do anything to help anyone, until backed into a corner or the problem made public!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Chip, 13 Jun 2018 @ 12:07pm

    Why you Never Criticize "Google", Techdirt!

    Google Shills!

    Every Nation eats the Paint chips it Deserves!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2018 @ 12:59pm

    Re:

    It's always bothered me that the possessive form of "it" is "its" without the apostrophe. Because with literally every other word, you make the possessive form by adding an apostrophe + 's', or sometimes 's" + an apostrophe...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. icon
    JoeCool (profile), 13 Jun 2018 @ 1:12pm

    Re:

    Don't forget the CURRENT most popular trick of patent trolls: doing it on a mobile device. It's quickly replacing doing it over the internet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2018 @ 1:40pm

    Re: Re:

    It's english... we do nothing but break all the fucking rules... kinda shows where governments and humans got into the habit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12. icon
    towhead (profile), 13 Jun 2018 @ 1:47pm

    New Google Code of Conduct

    Don't Get Caught Being Evil

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2018 @ 2:04pm

    Re: Re:

    True, but isn't that just doing it over the Internet, but dividing the Interface into several pages and using a virtual keyboard?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2018 @ 2:32pm

    Re: Re:

    Seems to me that "its'" scans correctly too, even if it breaks the rule of when to put the ' after the s.

    It would definitely have less ambiguity than "its".

    So: who wants to join the revolution and change the English language for the better?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2018 @ 2:45pm

    Re:

    Mike: "Google should be shot in the head."

    You: "Look at Masnick wanting us to donate bullets to Google as if they don't have enough. Shill!"

    Also you: "Corporations are bad...unless they're intellectual property maximalists who have cheated actual artists and creators out of the fruits of their labors since the time of Queen Anne."

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 13 Jun 2018 @ 3:26pm

    Re:

    I pray that your idiocy is performative.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17. icon
    Madd the Sane (profile), 13 Jun 2018 @ 3:38pm

    Re: Re:

    Or doing it with an AI.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2018 @ 4:31pm

    Re:

    Wow, it's almost like the article is making an argument based on a perceived change in Google's attitude towards patents!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2018 @ 5:03pm

    Re: Why you Never Criticize "Google", Techdirt!

    Yes, this one side-adventure along TD's usual anti-patent crusade totally makes up for two decades of never mentioning Google's everyday spying on everyone, the gigabytes that it stores, and providing "direct access" to NSA according to Snowden.

    Anyone at all wondering can go to Copia and where brazen Masnick PROVES that he's a corporate shill -- not just for Google: https://copia.is/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/sponsors.png

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2018 @ 5:07pm

    Several comments saying how this exonerates TD / Mansick...

    Was that an explicit purpose? Or just the silly fanboys pick up on that because antsy over the soundly-based criticism in Masnick's 20-year history?

    Either wayk, it's NOT a substantive criticism of Google's core SPYING and TRACKING.

    Sheesh.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2018 @ 5:38pm

    They do it not only because they can, but because they think they are more important than other companies.

    Google is evil. They help the CIA, the NSA and others spy on the world's population.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2018 @ 5:52pm

    Re: Re:

    out_of_the_blue just hates it when due process is enforced.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2018 @ 6:07pm

    Re: Re:

    I always think of "his" and "hers" -- generic possessive pronouns don't get apostrophes. They're not worthy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2018 @ 7:31pm

    Royalty free and open source patents... provided you ask Google for permission first and don't break any of Google's arbitrary rules.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2018 @ 9:37pm

    Re: Several comments saying how this exonerates TD / Mansick...

    Said the guy busily sucking off the NSA and boasting about how they contribute to copyright enforcement.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2018 @ 10:07pm

    Re: Several comments saying how this exonerates TD / Mansick...

    "Either wayk, it's NOT a substantive criticism of Google's core SPYING and TRACKING."

    Obivously, since its an article about an entirely different subject, you assclown!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  27. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 13 Jun 2018 @ 10:10pm

    Whenever people ask what schizophrenia looks like, I just point them at your posts. Thanks for the public service.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  28. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2018 @ 12:18am

    The EPO does a thorough job of examining patent applications. You can see the prosecution history for the EP application at https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP16819781&lng=en&tab=doclist

    Attorneys for Google filed an amendment that narrowed the claims on May 10, 2017. Prosecution of a patent application can go back and forth many times between a patent office and an applicant before claims issue as a patent.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  29. icon
    PaulT (profile), 14 Jun 2018 @ 1:40am

    Re: Re: Why you Never Criticize "Google", Techdirt!

    "two decades of never mentioning Google's everyday spying on everyone"

    Erm, you know there's a search function that instantly proves you wrong, right? You can even use Google to find the fact that you're lying if you wish.

    "Masnick PROVES that he's a corporate shill"

    No, it proves that he has corporate sponsors for a specific project, not directly related to this site. Something which he has publicly and openly announced on day one of that site opening, yet you keep pointing to it as some kind of gotcha.

    You are yet to provide any proof that this has altered the editorial content here, of course, nor do you ever mention any of the other sponsors. You have nothing except the evidence that's been transparently and voluntarily been made publicly available by the man you claim is lying, yet you still have provided zero evidence for your own claims.

    Years later, and you still have nothing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  30. icon
    Stephen T. Stone (profile), 14 Jun 2018 @ 2:27am

    Re: Several comments saying how this exonerates TD / Mansick...

    Says the guy who spies on Techdirt commenter accounts and tracks the length of time between comments.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  31. icon
    JoeCool (profile), 14 Jun 2018 @ 5:40am

    Re:

    FTFA:

    While the phrase no longer leads Google's code of conduct, one remnant remains at the end.

    "And remember... don't be evil, and if you see something that you think isn't right -- speak up."

    And now you know...

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  32. icon
    Ninja (profile), 14 Jun 2018 @ 6:01am

    Re: Several comments saying how this exonerates TD / Mansick...

    You forgot your meds. Watch your blood pressure!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  33. identicon
    Chris, 14 Jun 2018 @ 10:13am

    Re: From the making-your-opponents-point-dept.

    Under current software patent rules the 'theoretical idea' (aka the core math that explains ANS) has been considered patent worthy. And in fact that concept is true in Patents in general.

    This is entirely wrong. The 'theoretical idea' or 'core math' is precisely what is not patentable. See, in the US, 35 U.S. Code ยง 101, the 'Alice' decision, and the patentability of an abstract idea. See, in Europe Articles 52 and 56 EPC, the 'Comvik' approach, and the prohibition against inventions that relate per se to schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, and programs for computers.

    And the fact that Google is unwilling to show news outlets the distinctions that they need to publicly demonstrate for patent protections kinda proves that it is nothing more than what Duda claims.

    Google need to show distinctions to the patent offices and courts. If they can do this, then they will get the patent. If they can't then they won't get the patent. So many people, on this blog and elsewhere, seem to equate having a patent application with having a granted patent.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  34. identicon
    Dave, 14 Jun 2018 @ 11:42am

    Hey Mike,
    Google isn't doing anything you or anybody else would not do.
    Period.

    Follow Scott Smith on twitter.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  35. identicon
    Thad, 14 Jun 2018 @ 1:07pm

    Re:

    An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition. It isn't just contradiction.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  36. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2018 @ 1:17pm

    Counterintuitively, if an inventor wants to help to provide free use of their invention, then the inventor should still get a patent. A first inventor might invent a process that includes step A. A second inventor at a company that is not against bullying people with its patents might invent and get a patent on a process with steps A and B. The process that includes steps A and B might become entrenched in the industry. If the first inventor had patented A, then the first inventor could have at least stopped the bully company from practicing anything that includes step A, even though the company has a narrower patent on A and B together. This could be used by the first inventor in negotiations with the company to stop it from using its own patent on A and B to bully people. ("I will let you do A if you stop bullying people that do A and B.")

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  37. identicon
    Dave, 14 Jun 2018 @ 2:08pm

    Re:

    Happens all the time.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  38. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 14 Jun 2018 @ 6:18pm

    Re: Re:

    I wish he wouldn't.

    Nature really should take its course.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  39. icon
    That One Guy (profile), 15 Jun 2018 @ 5:21am

    'It's only bad when they do it.'

    Blatant hypocrisy is one of their more entertaining character traits, yes.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  40. identicon
    anon, 21 Jun 2018 @ 7:20am

    Re: costs

    while it might be nice for all inventors to get patents on all of their truly patentable ideas. the barriers to entry can be extreme. for example cost. this makes patents, that may make no money even if 'good', some what out of the reach of most mortals.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  41. icon
    David (profile), 17 Jul 2018 @ 7:22am

    Re:

    Prove it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.