or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Lawsuit alleges Apple lifted idea for iChat video backdrops
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lawsuit alleges Apple lifted idea for iChat video backdrops - Page 2

post #41 of 82
You mean not everyone has a blue-screen/green screen Wall behind them when they chat?
post #42 of 82
There are so many patents I doubt any company would know that they are violating one anymore. If a company had to search through all those patents we would never get any new features.

If it is this company's patent, Apple needs to pay them.
post #43 of 82
If a company develops software for a particular platform or OS or application, and has no desire to port it to another (for whatever reason), does that mean that if someone creates a similar technology it is infringing? I mean, it can't be the same code, algorithm or method, right? Does it depend on the wording of the patent?

Let's say it does, that it is the idea behind it that is patented (since it couldn't technically be the actual method), does that invalidate the patent since there is obviously prior art for real time image blending? I mean, green screen or variable background aside, video has been overlaid on variable backgrounds for years. It doesn't seem to be a particularly novel idea.

Just wondering if any would-be or actual lawyers out there might know...
post #44 of 82
Well, Apple did lift it. The technologies been around for... how long?

I'm all for suing Apple if it is justified. I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that in this case, it's not.

Technologically, there's no difference between blue screens and multicolour screens. They work the same way.

I can't patent a Yellow Screen. Or can I ?!!?!11

Edit: Whoops, didn't RTFA. It sounds like this company has patented compositing! Holy expletive! They own 3D graphics, compositing apps and real-time video editing! GTFO.
post #45 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by william Hurt View Post

why do you ridicule something you know nothing about? you have no idea of the lawsuits background. I think apple like all corporations steal from whereever they can and are willing to play the game as far as lawsuits are concerned.

personally i think it is good that apple are being sued they are getting way too huge a corporation to give a @#$% about anyone other than their own bottom line.

They have relied on customers such as yourselves for years to keep their head about water and yet 'you' the customer are the last thing they care about.

Apple like all corporations have stolen a great many things / or when they feel that the risk is too high they buy companies out in order to have that technology under their wing.

Sure go ahead ridicule companies who stand up for their rights against huge corporations. I'll bet you all thought Bush was a liberal too!

What are you talking about?
post #46 of 82
This one could actually get quite interesting. Patent 5,764,306 was expired for a little over a year based on a failure to pay maintenance fees. The patent has been reinstated, but the law provides for 'intervening rights' when an alleged infringer takes action based on the expiration of the patent.

The timing seems highly relevant - the patent was apparently expired between June 9, 2006 and June 13, 2007. Did Apple rely on the expiration during this time period as it developed the new iChat for this fall's Leopard release? If so, 35 U.S.C. s.41(c)(2) might apply and might provide a basis for Apple to continue using the technology.
post #47 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by killroy View Post

They better sue ATI and Nvidia. Apple wrote only code to use a function of the graphics chips.
I can hear it now, get the F**k out of my court room.

Graphics chips only have the ability to do overlay with blue or green background. The patent claim (and related iChat feature) is completely different.
post #48 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R View Post

Well, Apple did lift it. The technologies been around for... how long?

I'm all for suing Apple if it is justified. I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that in this case, it's not.

Technologically, there's no difference between blue screens and multicolour screens. They work the same way.

I can't patent a Yellow Screen. Or can I ?!!?!11

Edit: Whoops, didn't RTFA. It sounds like this company has patented compositing! Holy expletive! They own 3D graphics, compositing apps and real-time video editing! GTFO.

It's no different between blue screen and regular background?

Then it is a simple question - which video related software has this feature (other than the patent holder's software and iChat)? If they are no different, I am sure every single video editing software would have it.

Please please please read the patent. It is not about a single color background. You can sit in your office with all your junks in the background. The patent is about recognizing which area of the video is "background" and replace it. It does not look for any particular color (whether it is blue, pink, red, purple, green or yellow).

[Edit] Let's be a little more technical.
If you look for a particular color, the best way is to convert to Y Cb Cr, and look for particular Cb Cr combination. No matter what kind of lighting you have on that blue, the Cb Cr combination is very consistant. I have done a project looking for skin tones and the result is very predictable. I am pretty sure most of the face recognition use this method too (and I bet they are all patented).

If you look for static background, you will have to use motion detection. It is not difficult - just look for the area which doesn't move. Actually, you probably still want to convert to Y Cb Cr and look for area whose Cb and Cr values don't change much (but ignore Y), so if the lighting of the room changes, it still knows the background is the background.

Today, any reasonable video engineer would be able to do this. Like I said in my earlier post, the problem is that you have to rewind your mind back to 1997. I don't dare to say this was an obvious inventor 10 years ago.

I believe the patent is indeed valid. However, I have the problem with the demand of the plaintiff (and probably with how the patent cases are fought in court in general). Let's say the court finds for the plaintiff, it should order Apple to remove this feature from OSX (it doesn't work well anyway), and pay the damages. However, what is the damage? I will bet the plaintiff is not financially hurt by Apple's action whatsoever so there is no damage.

Company should get profit by selling products people want, and have patents which matters, not by holding some patents nobody care about (even if they are valid), and sue, when the patent doesn't contribute to their business at all.
post #49 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by william Hurt View Post

why do you ridicule something you know nothing about? you have no idea of the lawsuits background. I think apple like all corporations steal from whereever they can and are willing to play the game as far as lawsuits are concerned.

personally i think it is good that apple are being sued they are getting way too huge a corporation to give a @#$% about anyone other than their own bottom line.

They have relied on customers such as yourselves for years to keep their head about water and yet 'you' the customer are the last thing they care about.

Apple like all corporations have stolen a great many things / or when they feel that the risk is too high they buy companies out in order to have that technology under their wing.

Sure go ahead ridicule companies who stand up for their rights against huge corporations. I'll bet you all thought Bush was a liberal too!

Whatever it takes to make the best computers. I'm pretty sure that if Apple didn't care about us consumers, we wouldn't have such great products. They're deeply committed to making the best computers and consumer electronics. With so many companies sitting on massive amounts of "intellectual property", it's logical to assume that a company like Apple could easily and unknowingly infringe on someone's else's patents. It's also obvious, as with Cisco and the iPhone, that this company kept their mouth shut until Leopard shipped to maximize their possible reward. If you ask me, these people should just pull down their pants and take it like a man. Where was Apple's reward when Microsoft ran off with their intellectual property to create the shittiest operating system known to man? This country desperately needs patent reform. Technology is going to continue to evolve and glacial speed if everyone continues to sit on their intellectual property and do nothing with it. Every company should be able to use any patent, so long as they pay for it. In fact, it should be a flat, one time payment for all tech patents. This way, whoever makes the best products gets the cheese and we all get our hands on better technology at faster pace and cheaper prices. It might not be as lucrative for some companies, but it's a hell of a lot better for the state of the art. Technology would explode with this kind of scheme.
Embrace your inner geek.
Reply
Embrace your inner geek.
Reply
post #50 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnqh View Post

Today, any reasonable video engineer would be able to do this. Like I said in my earlier post, the problem is that you have to rewind your mind back to 1997. I don't dare to say this was an obvious inventor 10 years ago.

I think it's much more likely a matter of people not bothering to implement something that would have required much more processing power than was commonly available 10 years ago. Hell, 10 years ago, you were a rarity to even have a camera attached to your computer.

I don't think anybody who actually develops software would have heard a description of the feature and not known immediately that the effect was accomplished by comparing pixels between the current frame and a reference frame for change.
post #51 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post

There are so many patents I doubt any company would know that they are violating one anymore. If a company had to search through all those patents we would never get any new features.

If it is this company's patent, Apple needs to pay them.


Yes, and here's how... They should determine what percentage of Leopard's bulk this infringement involves (let's say it accounts for 0.00001% of Leopard's code) and give them that percent of $120 for however many copies they've sold and how many they hope to sell in the future. As if Apple's making huge profits from Leopard's sale because of this minor feature.
Embrace your inner geek.
Reply
Embrace your inner geek.
Reply
post #52 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Lawsuit or no lawsuit, APPLE should never have added such bogus crap to Leopard in the first place. Tacky green-screen effects and stacks-in-the-dock too. I guess the estate of Dr. Suess will be suing for stacks next! Whoever came up with this garbage first; it doesn't matter. It's garbage.

Stacks are okay, they just need a little more refinement.
Embrace your inner geek.
Reply
Embrace your inner geek.
Reply
post #53 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnqh View Post

People need to start reading those patents before talking.

It does not use blue screen/green screen. It is about recognizing a static background.

Of course, everything's obvious in hindsight. At this moment, I would say that's a pretty easy thing to do. However, that patent was filed in 1997, a full ten years ago.

Guess what, if nobody else (including Apple) come up with that for ten years, that's strong argument that it WAS NOT OBVIOUS. You don't judge whether a patent is valid by whether it is obvious today. You have to rewind your mind back to the filing date.

There is still prior art to this, the Blue screen/green screen just makes it easier.
post #54 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by TinyIslander View Post

I guess in your eyes then, Apple has no credibility - FxPlug is Apple's name for their image-processing plug-in architecture, used in Final Cut Pro.

A little research before opening mouth, prevents filling mouth with foot...

Uhm... Correct me if I'm wrong, but using "FX" in the name of something that actually has to do with video effects... What's wrong with that? I'm sure he was talking about other products that have nothing to do with "effects" and just use it to sound cool, kind of like Microsoft using XP so that Windows would seem as though it's on par with Mac OS X, or how they named their 2nd Xbox the 360 so it wouldn't seem below the PS3. Microsoft has zero credibility.
Embrace your inner geek.
Reply
Embrace your inner geek.
Reply
post #55 of 82
I don't understand... realtime keying solutions have been available for ages now in other programs and hardware units. What's the difference between these other companies and Apple? Did this company find some similarities in the way that Apple has offered the solution?
post #56 of 82
BTW, Adobe AfterEffects has a keying choice that recognizes static backgrounds. Are they going to get sued too?
post #57 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

While I suspect that Apple will win this one (unless they somehow stole and are using the exact same algorithms this company uses for their product), I would not call this one frivolous, like so many of the others.

Weather broadcasts and movies are a bit different in that they typically use blue or green screens. If this company developed a new and unique way to map a varied background pattern and substitute something else in it's place (as opposed to just "replace all the green pixels with the weather map") AND if Apple is utilizing the same technique, the MIGHT have a case.

I'd say the idea isn't necessarily unqiue or non-intuitive, it's a natural progression of the green screen. But HOW they did it might be the key to the lawsuit.

True that the TV and Movies use a green/blue screen, You can change the sensitivity of the software. It isn't permanently set on green or blue. You can change it so the display is what ever color the person is wearing, or what ever color you want. It makes it easier having a large off color background, usually a color people dont wear much
post #58 of 82
Prior to Leopard there was a third party add on for iChat that used exactly the same technology that Leopard is now using. I saw their web site at least a year ago, but I can't remember the name of link now. When Apple announced this upgrade to iChat, I thought they had perhaps bought out this smaller company. Perhaps they did.

Edit: searched my bookmarks and found it:

http://www.scriptsoftware.com/chatfx/
post #59 of 82
Quote:
Okay, I won't go so far as to say that all corporations steal, but Apple has been known to "borrow" a few ideas. Remember Konfabulator? Apple lifted that right up and dropped it in Panther. And they got away with it. No lawsuit, no nothing.

There wasn't really much room to sue. Konfabulator cannot patent the entire idea of desktop widgets. Konfabulator widgets are based on javascript and XML. Dasboard is based on HTML, CSS, and Webkit, so they both use very different code.

Dashboard was introduced in Tiger not Panther.
post #60 of 82
Quote:
Today, any reasonable video engineer would be able to do this. Like I said in my earlier post, the problem is that you have to rewind your mind back to 1997. I don't dare to say this was an obvious inventor 10 years ago.

I don't believe that they can patent the entire idea if keying off of a static background. Especially when no one holds a patent on the basic idea of chroma key. They can patent their particular software or technique for achieving this. But they cannot hold a patent and say no one can develop their own code for achieving the same effect.
post #61 of 82
You'd think the people would have had enough of silly lawsuits
I look around me and I see it isn't so
Some people want to fill the world with silly lawsuits
And what's wrong with that?
I need to know
'cause here I go again...

I will sue...
I will sue...

I see my idea command a hefty fee, they got it free...
Ah, they stole it all, and it belongs to me... the ligatee

Patents don't come in a minute
But if they do you'll make a haul
Wait til the moment they begin it
And then you sue them,
Oh yes you sue them,
It isn't silly at all...

(apologies to Sir Paul McCartney)
post #62 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

I don't believe that they can patent the entire idea if keying off of a static background. Especially when no one holds a patent on the basic idea of chroma key. They can patent their particular software or technique for achieving this. But they cannot hold a patent and say no one can develop their own code for achieving the same effect.

The patent doesn't work that way.

You always start with the broadest claim. In this case, the broadest claim (backdrop) is not possible, so you scale back to the next broadest claim (backdrop over static background).

And the method doesn't have to be the exact coding - the description just needs to be enough that someone else can do it accordingly.

Look at all the Apple patent filings. They are no better or worse than this one (or the others which is used to sue Apple). Everyone plays the same game.

More importantly, whichever patent we talk about (from Apple, IBM, MS or anyone), it would be obvious to anyone in the field 10 years from now. I have to repeat this point again and again - you have to rewind your mind back to when the patent was filed. The patent office (and court) don't look at present days. They look at whether it is a valid patent WHEN IT WAS FILED.
post #63 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by macpractice View Post

This one could actually get quite interesting. Patent 5,764,306 was expired for a little over a year based on a failure to pay maintenance fees. The patent has been reinstated, but the law provides for 'intervening rights' when an alleged infringer takes action based on the expiration of the patent.

The timing seems highly relevant - the patent was apparently expired between June 9, 2006 and June 13, 2007. Did Apple rely on the expiration during this time period as it developed the new iChat for this fall's Leopard release? If so, 35 U.S.C. s.41(c)(2) might apply and might provide a basis for Apple to continue using the technology.

Can't say I'm surprised that such a crucial point was left out of the lawsuit. As long as Apple keeps good documentation about their development, which I would guess they do, they should have no trouble shooting this down.

Obviously, StarFX's technology was making them a boatload of money since they failed to renew their patent. Then again, it would be easy to make a boatload of money by suing someone for patent infringement, if the patent wasn't expired. Looks like StarFX is about to learn a valuable, be it painful, lesson.

If anyone needs to be sued for blatantly lifting ideas from others, just look at Windows.
post #64 of 82
Quote:
You always start with the broadest claim. In this case, the broadest claim (backdrop) is not possible, so you scale back to the next broadest claim (backdrop over static background).

Of course their is a lot of gray area in this as the reason it ends up going to court. But I haven't seen a patent upheld for any entire vague concept where one company gets to dominate one product. Someone invented everything first. That person or company is able to patent their way of doing it but they cannot monopolize an entire industry by preventing others from developing a competing product that accomplishes the same task.

Goodyear could not patent the entire concept of the rubber tire, Sony could not patent the concept of the personal audio cassette player, Adobe could not patent the entire concept of the digital image editor.

Quote:
Look at all the Apple patent filings. They are no better or worse than this one (or the others which is used to sue Apple). Everyone plays the same game.

Apple's patents are probably as much defensive as offensive. Apple did not patent the iPod user interface and was later sued by Creative.

Google, Apple lawsuit you see pages of suits against Apple. I don't see Apple bring many suits against other companies. Except where there is an extreme breach such as Real hacking into Fairplay.
post #65 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleshorts View Post

You'd think the people would have had enough of silly lawsuits
I look around me and I see it isn't so
Some people want to fill the world with silly lawsuits
And what's wrong with that?
I need to know
'cause here I go again...

I will sue...
I will sue...

I see my idea command a hefty fee, they got it free...
Ah, they stole it all, and it belongs to me... the ligatee

Patents don't come in a minute
But if they do you'll make a haul
Wait til the moment they begin it
And then you sue them,
Oh yes you sue them,
It isn't silly at all...

(apologies to Sir Paul McCartney)

Omigosh, thats so funny! Did you write that?
Your good.
Mac Mini 1.83Ghz Core 2 Duo with 2GB RAM, 80GB HD+160GB External HD
Running Mac OS 10.5 Leopard


Upgrade Your Mini Yourself!

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2

All wrong. Avon perfumes...
Reply
Mac Mini 1.83Ghz Core 2 Duo with 2GB RAM, 80GB HD+160GB External HD
Running Mac OS 10.5 Leopard


Upgrade Your Mini Yourself!

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2

All wrong. Avon perfumes...
Reply
post #66 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive At Five View Post

Okay, I won't go so far as to say that all corporations steal, but Apple has been known to "borrow" a few ideas. Remember Konfabulator? Apple lifted that right up and dropped it in Panther. And they got away with it. No lawsuit, no nothing.

-Clive

Remember Desk Accessories? Konfabulator was shamelessly plugged as the way to get these back since Apple had not delivered them in OS X. Did Apple sue over that. No. Now that we have suitable muddied that case do you really still want to try to beat that broken drum?
.
Reply
.
Reply
post #67 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Of course their is a lot of gray area in this as the reason it ends up going to court. But I haven't seen a patent upheld for any entire vague concept where one company gets to dominate one product. Someone invented everything first. That person or company is able to patent their way of doing it but they cannot monopolize an entire industry by preventing others from developing a competing product that accomplishes the same task.

Goodyear could not patent the entire concept of the rubber tire, Sony could not patent the concept of the personal audio cassette player, Adobe could not patent the entire concept of the digital image editor.



Apple's patents are probably as much defensive as offensive. Apple did not patent the iPod user interface and was later sued by Creative.

Google, Apple lawsuit you see pages of suits against Apple. I don't see Apple bring many suits against other companies. Except where there is an extreme breach such as Real hacking into Fairplay.

Goodyear invented rubber tire? Where did you get that? Good year was founded in 1898. The rubber tire patent was obtained by Robert Thomson in 1846.

Sony didn't patent Walkman because someone else did it first. The inventor did sue Sony (and settled for a "few million euro").

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/06...n_patent_case/

You cannot patent a software concept. You can patent the particular ways to do the eidting. Do a search on uspto.gov and see how many patents Adobe has (443). Keep in mind, Adobe is a software company so most (if not all) of them are software patents.

Adobe did patent the timeline view (5999173). If one day, they decided to sue the maker of all the other video editing software, don't be surprised. Actually, I have personally heard this concern from someone working at one of Adobe's competitors.

Apple did file patent app for the iPod interface. Creative filed a few months earlier, and Creative was the inventor of organizing music by tag information anyway, and won a nice 100MM settlement.

Do you really think Apple is just being nice with its patent holdings? Well, when a big fish send a letter to a small fish "stop using my patent", what do you think happens? There is a reason why you only see big companies get sued. The small fish will simply comply without making any noise. Use a little common sense please.
post #68 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnqh View Post

People need to start reading those patents before talking.

It does not use blue screen/green screen. It is about recognizing a static background.

The only difference between blue/green screen, is that Apple is doing it on a pixel by pixel basis and comparing it with the pre-sampled background rather than green (or blue). The method is exactly the same as digital blue/green screen.

Here's how Apple does it:
go to pixel 1:1
if pixel = sampled background pixel then
substitue with video backdrop pixel
else
leave pixel
go to pixel 1:2
...

Weather maps check to see if the pixel is green or blue, rather than the sampled backdrop pixel. This is why it screws up when you move the camera, or if you are wearing something that is the same colour as the background.

This case has no merit whatsoever.
post #69 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by macpractice View Post

This one could actually get quite interesting. Patent 5,764,306 was expired for a little over a year based on a failure to pay maintenance fees. The patent has been reinstated, but the law provides for 'intervening rights' when an alleged infringer takes action based on the expiration of the patent.

Very interesting. If this doesn't work, Apple can have Disney reduce U.S. patent terms to ten years.
post #70 of 82
Ok, so if Apple to do this willingly - then they should pay up!

NOW if the case gets thrown out, and or in a trial, they win, then it HAS to be, that the other party HAS to pay ALL legal fees, and money for time wasted i.e. judges / courts, jury, everyone. Hell let's make it so that whatever a person makes per hour in their job, is what they get paid for being on the jury, and the losers pay all of these fees.

You can believe that if a case heads to a jury trial, it will be settled out of court more often, if it's in a person / companies benefit.

This should help to keep the number of lawsuits down to a minimum.

Every case goes to trial, and loose pay up win and smile all the way to the bank

At least this way folks would think twice about suing, and lawyers, would think (well sort of think) twice about taking on a case.

Skip
post #71 of 82
If you look up the Trinity globecaster by Play (dubbed the first internet TV station in a box) you will see it had active chroma keying in 1998 or so. The original Trinity box had virtual sets as early as 1994-5. The globecaster had the same capabilities plus the ability to send video/audio streams across the internet. You essentially could have multiple net-casting studios pushing video to consumers PCs. You could make it two-way (or more) with extra boxes. That seems enough like chat to make it prior art.

This device was made during the first internet boom/bust. It was limited only because bandwith concerns and routing technology was out of its hands and there really wasn't DSL penetration across the US.

The company spun off from Newtek (the Video Toaster guys) and made on of the tiniest NTSC barcode generators around.

There also were a couple of "push" internet technology startups hanging around the edges of Siggraph and NAB during that time. A couple allowed you to push voice/video across the internet as long as you loaded the player on your PC although I only remember that the globecaster had the ability to create/load virtual sets and actively composite live speakers with the sets.
post #72 of 82
This process was a patent issued to Quantel Limited of the U.K. in 1992 called "Image keying generator for video special effects." It replaced the need for blue screen chroma key backgrounds by using a snapshot of an existing piece of video that to subtract the subsequent differences within the scene and artificially creating a key mask. It worked pretty well if the images weren't noisy and was used extensively for special effects such as vehicle and people removal on street scenes or cleanly inserting foreground objects into existing video without the need for chroma key setups.

In a nutshell, this is called prior art.
post #73 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally View Post

Or most Sci-Fi channel shows....

A tv show or weather broadcast is not a chat software.. even apple faithfull cannot be this dense.
post #74 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337_5L4Xx0R View Post

Well, Apple did lift it. The technologies been around for... how long?

I'm all for suing Apple if it is justified. I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that in this case, it's not.

Technologically, there's no difference between blue screens and multicolour screens. They work the same way.

I can't patent a Yellow Screen. Or can I ?!!?!11

Edit: Whoops, didn't RTFA. It sounds like this company has patented compositing! Holy expletive! They own 3D graphics, compositing apps and real-time video editing! GTFO.

It's justified because the company has a patent on the process. You better hope the limb you are going out on is strong enough to hold your weight. As to whether you can patent a yellow screen.. you can patent anything the patent office will grant. Go ahead.. patent the yellow screen, the patent office will either accept or reject your patent. What should the company do?... say to themselves.. gee, we have this patent but cause a few people other there think we shouldn't have this patent, lets not defend it cause those apple fanatics, they will pay our shareholders when we not making any money.. yeah, this company is so concerned about apple fanatics opinions that they will willfully not defend a patent they have. If i was apple, i'd buy the company or try to invalidate the patent.
post #75 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

A tv show or weather broadcast is not a chat software.. even apple faithfull cannot be this dense.

Yes and no. It's not as if the principle of an effect is suddenly different because it's used in a different setting.
post #76 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Divebus View Post

This process was a patent issued to Quantel Limited of the U.K. in 1992 called "Image keying generator for video special effects." It replaced the need for blue screen chroma key backgrounds by using a snapshot of an existing piece of video that to subtract the subsequent differences within the scene and artificially creating a key mask. It worked pretty well if the images weren't noisy and was used extensively for special effects such as vehicle and people removal on street scenes or cleanly inserting foreground objects into existing video without the need for chroma key setups.

In a nutshell, this is called prior art.

That patent filing is the worse I have ever read - obsolute legalise which is impossible to understand. However, it does sound like a prior art - although I think the filing is about doing it the analog way, without digital processing.

However, recent supreme court ruling has said that just doing something in digital is not enough for the "novelty" requirement.

So, I am switching my position - this lawsuit will fail.
post #77 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Yes and no. It's not as if the principle of an effect is suddenly different because it's used in a different setting.

The effect is possibly achieved differently. They are not patenting the effect, merely the technique of achieving the effect. That's why a comparison between a weather report and chat software is useless. Example, Vonage lost a case to verizon for patents relating to VOIP. Verizon did not claim they invented VOIP (of course they didn't) but vonage method of VOIP was infringing on Verizon patents. I'm not a lawyer (i'll be the first to admit that) but it seems everyday, mac fans are proclaiming themselves to be lawyers. Eveyone seems to know if a patent is valid, it's almost like everyone thinks idiots work at the patent office.. that the people at the patent office do not have law degrees. The patent is valid because the patent office granted it!!!.. the only way for apple to beat this is to show they are not violating the patent and if they are, perhaps to persuade the patent office that they shouldn't have granted the patent in the first place.. i find it hilarious that people (example johnjh) can read a patent and claim that the suit will fail... that's funny. The suit will pass BECAUSE THE PATENT WAS GRANTED.. didn't mean to shout.. just emphasizing.. just because the patent is a bunch of legalese or you do not know why the patent is granted is irrelevant to the case. Regardless of whether apple agrees with the patent or not does not grant them the right to violate it!!!. I know of no court that would allow a company to willfully violate a patent because

1. It's a bunch of legalese so the company itself determine they can violate the patent (without asking anyone)
3. The company disagrees with the patent and well, cause the C.E.O is popular, means they should be allowed to violate the patent (after all, this is a popularity contest).
4. It's a small company that owns the patent and they probably want money.. who cares about the validity of the patent.. it's ok to violate cause it's a small company that owns the patent.. besides, small greedy company with people who probably worked 16 hrs a day in some garage.. how dare they try to make money from their sweat and blood.. Apple is almost as big as Microsoft (bigger than IBM).. if Microsoft can bully companies, then damnit, apple has earned the right to detemine what patent they can willfully violate and which they cannot. Also apple has earned the right to take a poll of their fans to determine the validity of a patent.

I'm sure (I could be wrong) that a patent ruling has never taken in account, any of the reasons listed (1-4).
post #78 of 82
Not all patents stand up to further review.

Many of us feel this one shouldn't.
post #79 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

Not all patents stand up to further review.

Many of us feel this one shouldn't.

Have you ever been to a forum where Apple fans felt the patent of the company suing apple was valid?. I find it astonishing that every time apple is sued for patent violation, the patent is assumed invalid by apple fans. I've never been to a forum where anyone even remotely admitted that the patent might (i didn't say "was"... just "might") be valid. Clearly, apple fans think idiots work at the patent office. Strangely enough, if microsoft is sued for patent violation, the patent is assumed valid and everyone seems to think the patent office have smart people working for them.. very odd. Of course, if apple were to sue for patent violation, then the patent is valid (even though the same idiots working at the patent office approves apple patents). Frankly, i find truly amazing that the same people at the patent office can be idots one day (if they granted a patent to a company suing apple) and geniuses the next day (if they grant apple a patent). I wonder what their performance assessment looks like.
post #80 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnurse View Post

Have you ever been to a forum where Apple fans felt the patent of the company suing apple was valid?

Yes

It sounds like you have an axe to grind, unrelated to the discussion at hand.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Lawsuit alleges Apple lifted idea for iChat video backdrops