User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

The JPEG patent

The JPEG patent

Posted Apr 29, 2004 13:53 UTC (Thu) by icculus_98 (guest, #8535)
In reply to: The JPEG patent by jmshh
Parent article: The JPEG patent

Right, you're saying that you can't patent a mathematical routine, but
you can patent the application of that routine to some specific function.

But what is a "picture" other than a sequence of bits? Same with a radio
signal, save for the analog <-> digital part. So someone could have
patented "Frequency Modulation of Microphone Acquired Signals", right?


(Log in to post comments)

The JPEG patent vs FM patent

Posted May 1, 2004 0:07 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

I don't follow. I agree that a patent for Frequency Modulation of Microphone Acquired Signals is analogous to a patent on DCT for picture compression (i.e. JPEG), but what argument does that make? Such an FM patent is not ridiculous in any way (assuming you mean it was issued before FM radio was public knowledge, as the JPEG patent was allegedly issued before DCT compression of pictures was public knowledge).

The JPEG patent

Posted May 1, 2004 17:25 UTC (Sat) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

And now you reach the fundamental fiction of intellectual property law today: Despite the fact that everything on a computer is only a stream of bits (some of which describe how to transform other streams of bit), we treat some of these bit streams differently than others. In some cases, the same bit stream gets treated differently whether you call it a "picture" or a "sound" or an "executable."

"So the legal system we have - blessed as we are by its consequences if we are copyright teachers, Congressmen, Gucci-gulchers or Big Rupert himself - is compelled to treat indistinguishable things in unlike ways." -- Eben Moglen


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds