Google patents multi-effects processor

[Rob Strand]

The meat I was thinking of is actual algorithms, rather than detailed descriptions of things you could do.

Novel algorithms are very patentable.  A perfect example is the work of Julius O. Smith III. Anybody who does sound algorithm development should know who this guy is. He invented the concept of digital waveguides, patented it, then licensed it to companies like Roland who used it in their keyboards.

The problem you get into here is being too specific.   It's very easy to just to tweak details of an algorithm and claim it is something different to the patent.   For the case of digital waveguides it is a 'concept' so it can be bundled up nice and neatly.   BTW I am familiar with Julius O. Smith III, very clever dude.  The choice to put algorithm details in a patent is sometimes arbitrary although it can help explain your story.  For one, it presents a workable scenario even though it may not be the only scenario.  You only *need* to put in the details if the concept itself is the thing you are patenting.   In many cases  the steps to achieve the task as more important than the details.  In other cases is the application of ideas to a particular problem or area is the novel thing.    The more high level the claims the easier it is to defend and it is also hard for people to "tweak".   I have worked on algorithm development, not for audio but for medical stuff.  I'd say a strong patent should not *rely* on the details.

This is getting in algorithm territoriy and is far more patentable, but even then, exactly how you determine what is transients is an algorithm, and all someone needs to do is make an enhancement over your algorithm and they now have a valid patentable material.

That's exactly the problem.   If you follow the published papers in the journals there's definitely a pattern of improvement.  Taking ideas from one paper and another then adding a bit of your own stuff.   In recent times algorithms often use many functional "blocks" and it is easy to plug a different block into the basic scheme.

I recently didn't some work on audio restoration.   In terms of patentability audio restoration has many of the issue pitching shifting faces.  Many of the basic blocks and ideas are well known.  I saw one idea which was patented and it involved filling in missing data by going backwards and forwards in a certain way.    The bulk of the equations are well known but the way the signal was restored signal was novel.

1) companies patent ideas all the time because they can afford to waste some money, and want to take advantage of FIRST-TO-FILE in hopes of blocking others. For individuals, ideas are rarely profitable to patent.

When you have a company patents are one way to increase the "IP" value of a company in a formal way.   The expertise in a company is hard to quantify so patents try to turn that into something tangible.  The problem is companies start to patent all sort of crap in order to increase their patent count.     This is one area that has made patents evil.

Individuals do use patents for this.  They just want to protect their idea.

2) Novel ways to solve a problem (like Sines + Transients modelling) is patentable, but is easily superceded by a better implementation, and is great for companies/professors who want a fancy score card about how many patents they have, but aren't that profitable.

True *but* if you state that in a non-specific way it is very patentable and very hard to get around.    One company I worked for had patent which pretty much stopped anyone getting into their corner of the market.  The corner was a corner, there were other *similar* technologies and applications.  IIRC there was only one technology specific aspect of the patent.

3) Actual specific algorithms are highly patentable, and if they are good enough may represent the state-of-the-art long enough to pick up some licensing from companies who want to use them. Julius O. Smith III's digtial waveguides are a perfect example of this. They are still pretty much state-of-the-art (even though patent is so old it's public domain now)

Agreed.   The thing is while the patents are active they are doing their job.

I came across an old patent (90's) recently where a guy increased the bandwidth of a dipole antenna by placing another passive element close other elements.    People have been using passive elements in antennas for *years*.   The thing about that patent was the concept of placing it close to become a new resonator which spread out the bandwidth.    I saw people making antennas with two folded (active) dipoles the same way.  The question is do the folded dipole versions breach the patent.   On one hand they can be seen are two resonators next to each other.  On the other hand they can be seen as spreading the antenna over space and increasing the bandwidth - this idea is very old and very well known.   So depending on your viewpoint of *analysing* the antenna you get one view as common knowledge and one view as possibly breaching the patent.

[Rob Strand]

The meat I was thinking of is actual algorithms, rather than detailed descriptions of things you could do.

One thing I forgot to mention: When I read those claims the thing that came to mind was that some of the claims could be deemed to be present in analog effects.  So what is unique?

[confundido]

In case you missed it above: https://morfx.net/

Yes, compression and other effects use the input signal to control the effect but DSP let's you go new places.

[Rob Strand]

In case you missed it above: https://morfx.net/

Ah thanks.  That *is* a novel idea.

[potul]

Cool, good job stalking him down on youtube.  Next I figure we find his address and see if we can watch him working on effects from the street at night 

Sorry for the stalking....
At least we have recruited a DSP knowledgeable resource for the forum.   

[phasetrans]

FWIW, The meat is in the claims.   For that patent there are claims beyond a generic DSP box.

The meat I was thinking of is actual algorithms, rather than detailed descriptions of things you could do. Novel algorithms are very patentable.

• Google has a comprehensive patent database at patents.google.com. You will find lots of patent data hosted on Google domains.
• Abstract ideas are not patentable[/i], including purely mathematical algorithms. Anything that could constitute an algorithm must be tied to real world behaviors / activities.
• The US Supreme Court has arguably been less than clear in their approach in what constitutes sufficient implementation of #2. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patentable_subject_matter#The_algorithm_exception_and_the_patent-eligibility_trilogy