Lawsuit alleges Apple lifted idea for iChat video backdrops

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 81
    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.
  • Reply 42 of 81
    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...
  • Reply 43 of 81
    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.
  • Reply 44 of 81
    straskstrask Posts: 107member
    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?
  • Reply 45 of 81
    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.
  • Reply 46 of 81
    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.
  • Reply 47 of 81
    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.
  • Reply 48 of 81
    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.
  • Reply 49 of 81
    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.
  • Reply 50 of 81
    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.
  • Reply 51 of 81
    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.
  • Reply 52 of 81
    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.
  • Reply 53 of 81
    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.
  • Reply 54 of 81
    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?
  • Reply 55 of 81
    BTW, Adobe AfterEffects has a keying choice that recognizes static backgrounds. Are they going to get sued too?
  • Reply 56 of 81
    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
  • Reply 57 of 81
    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/
  • Reply 58 of 81
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    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.
  • Reply 59 of 81
    tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    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.
  • Reply 60 of 81
    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)
Sign In or Register to comment.