Ads on content and streaming platforms are increasing daily, and YouTube is no exception. I've paid for YouTube Premium for years, mostly to avoid mid-roll ads and for background playback. But recently, the official YouTube app crossed a line. Between the endless grid of distracting Shorts, community polls, and autoplaying recommended feeds, the interface has become a mess.
YouTube plans to introduce AV2 streaming in early 2027. The new codec promises around 30% better compression than AV1, potentially improving video quality and reducing data use.
YouTube has always been one of my go-to platforms for entertainment, learning, and keeping up with my favorite interests, but its recommendation algorithm doesn't always get things right. While the homepage can help me discover new content, it often feels cluttered with videos I have little interest in. Even the existing topic-based feed tabs can be surprisingly limiting, making it difficult to find exactly what I'm looking for without scrolling through endless recommendations.
YouTube is changing how its Home page works, giving viewers more control over what shows up there and making some of the appβs most-used sections easier to reach. Custom Feeds are now replacing the existing topic chips for eligible users, while YouTube is also testing a redesigned top bar on mobile that moves Subscriptions closer [β¦]
Some YouTube users are seeing the dislike button tucked away in a menu, raising questions about whether the platform is limiting how easily viewers can express negative feedback.
Jeff Kohler is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify patent law after courts sided with Google to invalidate his software patent. (Photo courtesy of Jeff Kohler)
Jeff Kohler was working as a software engineer in 2005 when he started spending his nights and weekends on a side project: a web conferencing system that could record and replay live sessions. He filed for a patent without the help of a patent attorney, stuffing two CDs full of C++ source code into the application to show his work.
The patent was issued in 2010, and years later, after Kohler had joined Microsoft, the Redmond company licensed his technology for its Teams video-conferencing platform.
When YouTube later added the ability for viewers to pause, rewind, and change the playback speed of live video, Kohler saw in the feature what he considered to be his own invention. Kohler, who lives in Bellevue, Wash., sued Google for patent infringement in U.S. District Court in Seattle in April 2023.
But rather than defending the featureβs originality, Google argued that Kohlerβs patent was too abstract to be eligible for patent protection. The district court agreed and dismissed the case, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that decision.
Both decisions cited Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that raised the bar for software patent eligibility by holding that an inventor cannot patent an βabstract ideaβ implemented with generic technology.
Since then, Alice has been used to invalidate thousands of software patents, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to revisit the standard. Now, Kohler is asking the Supreme Court to take up his case, not to overturn Alice, but to clarify how courts should apply it.
βThe patent legal system has become hostile to inventors,β Kohler said. βBecause of Alice, my case got stopped before it even started.β
HowAlicechanged patent law
When Alice was handed down, patent trolls were on the rise: shadowy entities that bought vague patents to sue tech companies on shaky claims of patent infringement.Β
That changed under the 2014 ruling, which requires that a patent clear two hurdles: the idea cannot be βabstract,β and it must propose a sufficiently βinventive concept.β The standard has become βa crucial toolβ for fighting patent trolls, in the words of the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
But critics say itβs ill-suited to software patents. Because software inventions often rely on pre-existing hardware to run the source code, courts tend to find many of these patents to be insufficiently inventive.
Jon McMichael, an IP litigation partner at Fenwick who has written about Kohlerβs case, said this challenge is common in patents where inventors rely on general-purpose computers and off-the-shelf hardware to implement their ideas.Β
βThatβs where those patent holders run into more problems,β he said.
Experts say the courtsβ application of Alice has broadened to invalidate the patents of real inventors in addition to those of patent trolls. Toshiko Takenaka, a University of Washington IP law professor who is working on an academic paper about Kohlerβs case, said Aliceβs ability to quickly defeat bad actors comes βat the expense of the best inventors.β
βSoftware patents are too frequently being invalidated without giving the owner the opportunity to defend it,β Takenaka said. βThis inventor provided something ordinary computers could not do, right? So therefore, in my view, this is an eligible invention.β
Some judges have raised similar concerns, including Federal Circuit Chief Judge Kimberly Moore, who authored the opinion affirming the dismissal of Kohlerβs case. In a 2020 concurrence in a separate case, Moore wrote that she and her fellow judges were βunanimous in our unprecedented plea for guidanceβ from the Supreme Court on how to interpret Alice, which she called a βpatent-killing judicial exception of our own creation.β
A quest for legal clarity
After filing his patent, Kohler spent more than 15 years at Microsoft, where he helped launch HoloLens and rose to senior director of product management for the Surface line. He later served as a product leader at Meta for its Horizon platform.
Kohler says heβs hopeful the Supreme Court will agree to hear his case because his petition takes a new approach, asking the court to clarify how to apply the Alice test rather than disputing the test entirely. His new attorney, Kathryn Jean Miller, who does not have prior patent law experience, was admitted to practice before the Supreme Court bar for this case.
βItβs me and my lawyer against the world,β Kohler said. βI never thought I would be doing something like this.β
The Supreme Court has declined more than 89 petitions related to Alice, some of which had the Solicitor Generalβs endorsement. The justices will decide on Sept. 28 whether to hear Kohlerβs case and likely announce their decision the following week.
Kohler is hoping that other inventors will file amicus briefs, which are due by Sept. 23, to illustrate to the court the need for clarification.
βThereβs a broad coalition of people who would like some sanity brought back to patent law, from small inventors and startups to former judges,β Kohler said. βThatβs what Iβm trying to do with my petition.β