decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Having a decoder does not mean one can build a good encoder | 131 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Judge Robart confused and confusing
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 08:58 PM EST
Great that he can recognise an unbounded claim when he sees one,
but we can't blame the judge for not looking up words he doesn't
understand, e.g. codec, because the patent doesn't use that word.

The patent explicitly describes encoders and decoders as distinct
operators, thus concealing the truth we techies know that one is
acheived as the mathematical inverse of the other. Alsup would
understand that, given the right literature, and getting it explained
properly in the courtroom.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Having a decoder does not mean one can build a good encoder
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 02:40 PM EST
When encoder/decoders are lossy, having a decoder specification does not make it
possible to make an encoder, particularly one which provides pleasing results.
To provide pleasing results requires understanding how humans perceive the
result, and which aspects of the original can be discarded in the process. With
the specifications, given an encoded stream, there is only one resulting decoded
stream. But, given an original, one can generate many encoded streams. One could
envision an encoder which would generate a static tone regardless of the input.
It would meet the standard, but would not be valuable.

The ideal encoder will produce results with minimal perceived differences to the
original when experienced at normal speed. Some people will be able to detect a
bigger difference than others, and the encoder needs to produce a result
pleasing to most people who will experience the decoded results.

This difference in encoders yields the value of the encoder. Providing
instructions on how one builds an encoder which acts this way does have value to
society, but the patent generally only tells what has been done, and not why. In
the case of an encoder, the why of the matter is much more valuable to people
trying to improve encoding than the actual algorithm. If we must have patents on
algorithms, it should be required to explain why a particular algorithm was
chosen, and why it was better than alternatives.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )