Anybody who worked with high end drum scanners in the late '80s-early '90s will remember that the German company Hell had patented... angles.
In the quadrichromy process, where you superimpose four screen prints in the primitive colors cyan, magenta, yellow and black, it is very easy to get ugly artifacts, and there is a specific set of angle values that is optimal for this job. Hell patented these angles, and they would go after any company that attempted to use them for their separation and screening equipment (we're talking about very expensive scanners and film recorders that filled up an entire room and cost hundreds of thousands of 1990 dollars, major capital investments).
What part of any of that didn't already exist? LCDs didn't already have electronic circuitry to recieve signals from a computer? Optical compensation films were common, I see hundreds if not thousands of patents on them, note they make no claims about inventing such. Just another obvious addition to their "invention". The main claim also states dual color light sources, which are not used in LG monitors that Apple uses. The only remaining novel part of claim 1 is "wide aspect ratio".
It boils down to this claim being just as baseless as it first appears, just with standard patent bafflegab used to cloak it's insignificance.
Also, If this is about the construction techniques of LCD panels. Shouldn't they be suing companies that actually build LCD panels?
It really doesn't make sense that you would sue Apple for the intricacies of LCD construction when Apple doesn't build LCD panels and has no knowledge of such.
Sorry, but I was older than 3 in 1998 so I remember what LCD monitors looked like. Please provide the detailed specs of a 1998 monitor that meets the design criteria of this patent.
Sorry, but I was older than 3 in 1998 so I remember what LCD monitors looked like. Please provide the detailed specs of a 1998 monitor that meets the design criteria of this patent.
I was older than 23 in 1998, but I don't know what that is supposed to do with anything.
"very-wide-viewing-angle (Super-VA) technology achieved by simulating and optimizing the optical parameters of LCD cells and optical compensating layers in this TFT-LCD. "
So great defender of Bogus patents. I would like you to step up and provide detailed specs of an Apple monitor to show infringement of any remaining claims you consider valid.
This is a bogus patent, simply a wide screen extrapolation of available 1997 technology.
"very-wide-viewing-angle (Super-VA) technology achieved by simulating and optimizing the optical parameters of LCD cells and optical compensating layers in this TFT-LCD. "
So great defender of Bogus patents. I would like you to step up and provide detailed specs of an Apple monitor to show infringement of any remaining claims you consider valid.
This is a bogus patent, simply a wide screen extrapolation of available 1997 technology.
So you've judged a patent by its title. Way to go, Einstein*.
I remember using some SGI stuff in the mid 90's. Dude, it was light years ahead of everything. The quality of the flight sims were stunning. The UI was heavy with real time 3D effects that still remind me of SiFi.
Given SGI's involvement in OpenGL, these patents may very well represent some of the original art behind what we see as common place today. Sad to see SGI like this. A once great company with Kick a$$ hardware.
SGI was the only game in town for Hollywood special effects at the time. They were running their own flavor of UNIX. Talk about expensive? Hollywood was about the only people who could afford the machines or the software. The rest of the UNIX machines at the time, mostly used in engineering, were Sun Sparc.
Sad to see SGI like this. A once great company with Kick a$$ hardware.
For the record, it is not SGI who is suing Apple. Most of the assets of Silicon Graphics Inc were acquired by Rackable Systems in 2009. The new company is Silicon Graphics International, but pretty much just goes by "SGI" these days.
For the record, it is not SGI who is suing Apple. Most of the assets of Silicon Graphics Inc were acquired by Rackable Systems in 2009. The new company is Silicon Graphics International, but pretty much just goes by "SGI" these days.
Is it too soon to add Graphics Properties Holdings Inc. to the enemies list?
Good luck with the patent on a "wide-screen high resolution display". If they manage to win that one, it will become one of the world's richest companies.
I remember using some SGI stuff in the mid 90's. Dude, it was light years ahead of everything. The quality of the flight sims were stunning. The UI was heavy with real time 3D effects that still remind me of SiFi.
Given SGI's involvement in OpenGL, these patents may very well represent some of the original art behind what we see as common place today. Sad to see SGI like this. A once great company with Kick a$$ hardware.
I too was blown away by SGI back in the 90's. But in the past 10 years... Well, it is sad to see indeed a "once great company" devolve. The "innovator's dilemma" really hits hard in North America for hardware tech companies. AMD, ATI, Nvidia, IBM's chip division, HP, Compaq, RIM, Motorola, SGI, Palm, Microsoft (arguable how much they "innovated" but remember Windows CE was quite dominant at one point).
Its a case of having one good idea with legs doesn't mean you have a series of good ideas that continue over the long term.
The innovators dilemma is a fallacy that requires belief in a restricted, static world to make any sense. If you realize that one good idea with legs will carry you for awhile, but you better have the ability as an organization to come up with another good idea and not kill it because it does't look like the first idea, you can see what separates innovative companies, from flash in the pan companies that leverage one innovation.
just look at Kodak, their great idea, photo paper products (admittedly an almost 100 year good idea), is ending up killing them because they didn't realize they should't be a continue to only be a photo paper company, they should have been a memories or images company. Then the photo paper side of the house wouldn't have been able to strangle the digital imaging side until the company as a whole became irrelevant.
Comments
That's golden.
Nicely done.
In the quadrichromy process, where you superimpose four screen prints in the primitive colors cyan, magenta, yellow and black, it is very easy to get ugly artifacts, and there is a specific set of angle values that is optimal for this job. Hell patented these angles, and they would go after any company that attempted to use them for their separation and screening equipment (we're talking about very expensive scanners and film recorders that filled up an entire room and cost hundreds of thousands of 1990 dollars, major capital investments).
Anybody who worked with high end drum scanners in the late '80s-early '90s will remember that the German company Hell had patented... angles.
Hell's Angles.
What part of any of that didn't already exist? LCDs didn't already have electronic circuitry to recieve signals from a computer?
It boils down to this claim being just as baseless as it first appears, just with standard patent bafflegab used to cloak it's insignificance.
Also, If this is about the construction techniques of LCD panels. Shouldn't they be suing companies that actually build LCD panels?
It really doesn't make sense that you would sue Apple for the intricacies of LCD construction when Apple doesn't build LCD panels and has no knowledge of such.
Sorry, but I was older than 3 in 1998 so I remember what LCD monitors looked like. Please provide the detailed specs of a 1998 monitor that meets the design criteria of this patent.
Sorry, but I was older than 3 in 1998 so I remember what LCD monitors looked like. Please provide the detailed specs of a 1998 monitor that meets the design criteria of this patent.
I was older than 23 in 1998, but I don't know what that is supposed to do with anything.
But here is a Sharp design PDF from 1997:
sharp-world.com/corporate/info/rd/tj1/pdf/5.pdf
"very-wide-viewing-angle (Super-VA) technology achieved by simulating and optimizing the optical parameters of LCD cells and optical compensating layers in this TFT-LCD. "
So great defender of Bogus patents. I would like you to step up and provide detailed specs of an Apple monitor to show infringement of any remaining claims you consider valid.
This is a bogus patent, simply a wide screen extrapolation of available 1997 technology.
"very-wide-viewing-angle (Super-VA) technology achieved by simulating and optimizing the optical parameters of LCD cells and optical compensating layers in this TFT-LCD. "
So great defender of Bogus patents. I would like you to step up and provide detailed specs of an Apple monitor to show infringement of any remaining claims you consider valid.
This is a bogus patent, simply a wide screen extrapolation of available 1997 technology.
So you've judged a patent by its title. Way to go, Einstein*.
* Irony.
I remember using some SGI stuff in the mid 90's. Dude, it was light years ahead of everything. The quality of the flight sims were stunning. The UI was heavy with real time 3D effects that still remind me of SiFi.
Given SGI's involvement in OpenGL, these patents may very well represent some of the original art behind what we see as common place today. Sad to see SGI like this. A once great company with Kick a$$ hardware.
SGI was the only game in town for Hollywood special effects at the time. They were running their own flavor of UNIX. Talk about expensive? Hollywood was about the only people who could afford the machines or the software. The rest of the UNIX machines at the time, mostly used in engineering, were Sun Sparc.
So you've judged a patent by its title. Way to go, Einstein*.
Your superficial attack overlooks that we are discussing the content of the actual patent. I read many of the details before making any comment.
Have you?
Sad to see SGI like this. A once great company with Kick a$$ hardware.
For the record, it is not SGI who is suing Apple. Most of the assets of Silicon Graphics Inc were acquired by Rackable Systems in 2009. The new company is Silicon Graphics International, but pretty much just goes by "SGI" these days.
For the record, it is not SGI who is suing Apple. Most of the assets of Silicon Graphics Inc were acquired by Rackable Systems in 2009. The new company is Silicon Graphics International, but pretty much just goes by "SGI" these days.
Is it too soon to add Graphics Properties Holdings Inc. to the enemies list?
Is it too soon to add Graphics Properties Holdings Inc. to the enemies list?
Its never too soon to add a company to the list of enemies of Apple, at least not here.
I remember using some SGI stuff in the mid 90's. Dude, it was light years ahead of everything. The quality of the flight sims were stunning. The UI was heavy with real time 3D effects that still remind me of SiFi.
Given SGI's involvement in OpenGL, these patents may very well represent some of the original art behind what we see as common place today. Sad to see SGI like this. A once great company with Kick a$$ hardware.
I too was blown away by SGI back in the 90's. But in the past 10 years... Well, it is sad to see indeed a "once great company" devolve. The "innovator's dilemma" really hits hard in North America for hardware tech companies. AMD, ATI, Nvidia, IBM's chip division, HP, Compaq, RIM, Motorola, SGI, Palm, Microsoft (arguable how much they "innovated" but remember Windows CE was quite dominant at one point).
The innovators dilemma is a fallacy that requires belief in a restricted, static world to make any sense. If you realize that one good idea with legs will carry you for awhile, but you better have the ability as an organization to come up with another good idea and not kill it because it does't look like the first idea, you can see what separates innovative companies, from flash in the pan companies that leverage one innovation.
just look at Kodak, their great idea, photo paper products (admittedly an almost 100 year good idea), is ending up killing them because they didn't realize they should't be a continue to only be a photo paper company, they should have been a memories or images company. Then the photo paper side of the house wouldn't have been able to strangle the digital imaging side until the company as a whole became irrelevant.
Secondly, Id wager that far more people use google and droid then own an apple device.
Its fairly inconceivable that apple has more consumers then google.