|
Just keep in mind that their patent applies to most cell phones, webcams, generally any device that captures low quality video but can take still pictures that are higher resolution/quality. Sure, there are some exceptions, but this is the non-tech version.
Their patent deals with camcorders (their wording, not mine :) ). In the mid 90's, the only readily available consumer-grade electronics that could capture video as well as take still pictures took them at the same resolution, usually fairly low, and had a single chip that processed both the preview screen as well as what gets recorded. So, the still picture would look just as crappy as if you pressed pause on the VCR.
Kodak had the "brilliant" idea of separating those chips out so the preview screen got its data to show on the screen directly from the sensor in the camera (as was already being done), but the data for the still image (same crappy resolution) gets sent to the main processor to get resized by software... think photoshop, except all it does is resize the image and clean it up a bit before storing it.
Revolutionary, huh? Also note that most cheaper webcams you can buy don't come with a very good sensor to get the images from, and the same basic principals are used in those. The preview and general recording is crappy, but if you take a still image it usually tries to clean it up a bit and resize it.
So what's so revolutionary about it that it deserves a patent? If you read the patent itself, it's worded in a way that makes it sound like it's doing something awesome when in reality it's just separating two tasks that were already being done by one chip into two. Actually, it even specifies in the patent that it can still be carried out in a single chip.
The funny thing is, the video and photo capabilities of most cell phones these days use the same technology for the sensors and such that are described in this 13 year old patent. So, technically they have a point that the patent is being violated. However, they do not have a point in saying the patent is VALID.
Taking an existing patent and saying you're extending it by having the main processor do some clean-up on still images to make it look nicer is in now way a new idea at all. They didn't create any new hardware to do this. Everything is done by . All they did patent the idea of re-routing the still image to a piece of software that It seems to me like they took the existing technology and patented the obvious next step that everyone and their dog had already thought about. I'm surprised they didn't patent stamping the date on the video as well... or maybe they did.
This is as stupid as the XML patent lawsuit against Microsoft. XML (a standard created by a group, not a company), stands for eXtensible Markup Language and was created with the idea that it would be able to dynamically display data. This company that is suing Microsoft patented the intended purpose of XML (a format that was created to be able to be extended upon in order store and reference data in a standard format). The company that sued Microsoft did not create XML. They simply filed a patent that basically describes a method of having a document updated from an outside data source (like a database) using XML as the middleman. That seems to me like one of the core purposes of XML itself. So, I'd be apparently violating it by doing the following:
1) Create a program that displays information on the screen
2) Have that program use an XML file that links references from a database (or any other source) to references in the program created in step 1
3) Allow that data in the program created in step 1 to be automatically updated based on the field to field mappings done in the XML file in step 2.
Damn, now that's a revolutionary concept, except it's been used for decades. In software development it's referred to as abstraction. In fact, I do the same thing in a lot of the software I write. An example is a database and website I created that stores fairly sensitive information. I wanted other people to have access to securely have access to that information so I created a relatively simple but secure webpage where a valid user can write a program that, automatically logs in to the website, sends up some XML formatted data requesting information, and it is sent back to them in XML format where they process it. Now that I think about it, I might not actually be directly violating the patent since the logic that says "this data from the sender gets put into this field in the database" is stored in my software rather than an XML file.
And to go to the extreme example, think of a realtor. Sure, you could go door to door and look at a bunch of houses that are for sale, or you could hire someone who does the legwork and gives you what they think are the best candidates for houses. That's the general concept of this patent. Replace the seller(s) with the database, the realtor with the XML file, and the buywer with Microsoft Word and you've got what they patented.
Was there a time when patents were they actually reviewed the content of the patent before approving it? I thought that it had to be a significant change to an existing method or a new invention? Changing the file format of that middleman is not significant in any way, or new.
I guess I should patent revolutionary method for accellerated pedestrian travel where the pedestrian uses a non-motorized human powered hybrid vehicle to it to travel at a far higher speed than walking alone, using no solar, electrical or gas powered. Hey, I just patented the skateboard, but made the significant change of turning it into a vehicle that can run off of either gravity (going downhill) or human power (feet). Now all I've gotta do is make it a slightly different shape that makes it more aerodynamic than a simple boring skateboard, and damn... I can now sue anyone who makes a skateboard that resembles my more "aerodynamic" look.
You may think I'm kidding about that, but there's companies that make nothing. All they do is come up with ideas that they think they will be able to patent, sit on the patents until someone comes up with the idea themselves, wait until they become successful, then sue the hell out of them.
I have nothing against legitimate patents... I'm simply against the current abuse of the system by people patenting the obvious and using it as a revenue stream. I'm all for patents to protect others from stealing your revolutionary idea just because you don't have the funds to actually build it first.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
