If this little company really wants a jury trial, Apple could easily stretch out this thing for years... decades even. Anyone remember the guy who sued all of the car companies over his variable speed windshield wiper patent? He eventually won, but it took him something like 10 or 15 years.
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.
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.
The major difference between the iChat and StarFX is, the iChat looks less like crap.
Making a statement to the effect of "Apple did it right" isn't a useful claim, that doesn't really absolve Apple of any liability on its own if in fact they really did lift the idea. I really doubt Apple would be liable here, but these stories don't have enough information to make a valid judgement of that, and just about none of us here are lawyers anyway.
Quote:
Anyone that uses "FX" in the name of their stuff carry no credibility.
That says nothing about the topic at hand. One could say that any computer company with a fruity name carries no credibility, but then, here we are. So please don't use that kind of invalid argument.
I stood in front of a waterfall (as used in a backdrop) once so I have the copyright.
I'm gonna sue and make million$.
Wait, I mean I'm gonna rigorously defend my copyright.
My god, how clueless can people be? Do you even know the difference between patent and copyright?
For those who attack all the small companies who patented their work, don't we all wish Apple had patents on the original Mac interface instead of depending on the stupid copyright? Remember, Apple was once small too.
I think it would come down to the subtleties of how DBC renders their real-time video vs how Apple does. I'm almost certain it's more complex than simply a "Weather Forcast" / green screen.
Yeah it's more complicated but there are all sorts of keying techniques and this one will just be a combination of those. I just did a very basic test in Shake and with a configuration of nodes that already exist, you can cut out a static background using a clean plate (which is how Apple do it - that's why they tell you to step out of the frame).
Apple may use some motion tracking and something like the auto alpha they have in the Leopard Preview.app to enhance things but the concept seems way too broad to me.
The phrase used in the patent:
"Real-Time Method of Digitally Altering a Video Data Stream to Remove Portions of the Original Image and Substitute Elements to Create a New Image."
applies to green screening too so it can't hold up. The backdrop just happens to be a solid color but it doesn't have to be - that's just to make things easier. It's still part of the footage that is removed and replaced.
It's clear that their agenda is simply to be spiteful against Apple. Why would they make such absurd statements like "that all infringing equipment produced by Apple be destroyed".
Quote:
Originally Posted by able-x
wait, people actually got this feature to work? I tried it out and it looked like crap.
Same here. I got pixels jumping around all over the place round the edges. That was against a fairly white wall. It probably helps if it is actually a green screen you happen to be standing in front of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoboomafoo
Does this infringe too? Toysight
I don't think so, that projects graphics on top of the camera input. The demos that show the PS3 eyetoy might though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
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 agree, they should have gone with subtle and refined. Between that junk and the ipod ads, I can't help but feel their new target audience is 12 year old girls.
Comments
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.
Why are they doing this only now? It's been a known fact for more than half a year that this will be a feature of iChat.
Seems stupid. Or did they wait for the product to be released?
No, it took them this long to write all this nonsense.
I'll bet you all thought Bush was a liberal too!
Hell, Bush IS a Liberal!!!
And a wuss!
I'm gonna sue and make million$.
Wait, I mean I'm gonna rigorously defend my copyright.
The major difference between the iChat and StarFX is, the iChat looks less like crap.
Making a statement to the effect of "Apple did it right" isn't a useful claim, that doesn't really absolve Apple of any liability on its own if in fact they really did lift the idea. I really doubt Apple would be liable here, but these stories don't have enough information to make a valid judgement of that, and just about none of us here are lawyers anyway.
Anyone that uses "FX" in the name of their stuff carry no credibility.
That says nothing about the topic at hand. One could say that any computer company with a fruity name carries no credibility, but then, here we are. So please don't use that kind of invalid argument.
Anyone that uses "FX" in the name of their stuff carry no credibility.
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...
I stood in front of a waterfall (as used in a backdrop) once so I have the copyright.
I'm gonna sue and make million$.
Wait, I mean I'm gonna rigorously defend my copyright.
My god, how clueless can people be? Do you even know the difference between patent and copyright?
For those who attack all the small companies who patented their work, don't we all wish Apple had patents on the original Mac interface instead of depending on the stupid copyright? Remember, Apple was once small too.
I think it would come down to the subtleties of how DBC renders their real-time video vs how Apple does. I'm almost certain it's more complex than simply a "Weather Forcast" / green screen.
Yeah it's more complicated but there are all sorts of keying techniques and this one will just be a combination of those. I just did a very basic test in Shake and with a configuration of nodes that already exist, you can cut out a static background using a clean plate (which is how Apple do it - that's why they tell you to step out of the frame).
Apple may use some motion tracking and something like the auto alpha they have in the Leopard Preview.app to enhance things but the concept seems way too broad to me.
The phrase used in the patent:
"Real-Time Method of Digitally Altering a Video Data Stream to Remove Portions of the Original Image and Substitute Elements to Create a New Image."
applies to green screening too so it can't hold up. The backdrop just happens to be a solid color but it doesn't have to be - that's just to make things easier. It's still part of the footage that is removed and replaced.
It's clear that their agenda is simply to be spiteful against Apple. Why would they make such absurd statements like "that all infringing equipment produced by Apple be destroyed".
wait, people actually got this feature to work? I tried it out and it looked like crap.
Same here. I got pixels jumping around all over the place round the edges. That was against a fairly white wall. It probably helps if it is actually a green screen you happen to be standing in front of.
Does this infringe too? Toysight
I don't think so, that projects graphics on top of the camera input. The demos that show the PS3 eyetoy might though.
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 agree, they should have gone with subtle and refined. Between that junk and the ipod ads, I can't help but feel their new target audience is 12 year old girls.
There's never a dull day in Apple's legal department. They must be hiring like crazy to keep up with all these lawsuits.
If nothing else let's hope these silly law suits are keeping the legal staff off the backs of Apple fans & bloggers!
D
I can hear it now, get the F**k out of my court room.
wait, people actually got this feature to work? I tried it out and it looked like crap.
TOTAL CRAP!