"Apple notes the invention saves time by eschewing the sweep of positions a moveable lens assembly goes through to find optimal focus in some existing autofocus systems."
Do you not think that other camera manufacturers are doing the same type of thing? The technology has been around for a long time (years before Apple filed their patent applications). Of course other manufacturers are looking at details like the percentage of the frame the faces occupy to help with AF speed, also taking things like Depth of Field for a given focal length and aperture into consideration to accelerate AF performance. The Apple patent assumes the use of very old AF technology in it's filings.
If companies like Minolta (with their camera related technology now owned by Sony) released their algorithms for technology being used to improve AF speed based on subject detection and percentage of the frame occupied, and (even before digital cameras were popular), I think you'll find that the Apple patent is based on prior art. AF technology used by today's digital cameras is very sophisticated, as it has been for years before Apple filed these patent applications.
This is just another example of a broken patent system.
and only companies with substantial resources can defend themselves against frivolous patent litigation
Why do you assume it's frivolous?
Is it because you don't run Apple and aren't responsible for protecting its greatest asset (intellectual property) and aren't responsible to shareholders?
Probably.
WAKE UP. There are billions of dollars at stake here. If you were running Apple, you would do exactly the same thing, if not more.
As far as "innovation" goes, if the rest of the industry feels it can't innovate around Apple's implementation of tech, then it's a pretty sad state of affairs for the industry outside Cupertino: one that is beset by galactic laziness and a lack of imagination. This is what happens when you sit on your hands and let a leaner, meaner, faster competitor run away with the market. And a smarter one, too, that used the same patent system that is open to everyone else.
If "smaller" companies feel they can't innovate, it's their fault. They will come and go and live and die until someone comes along who can innovate.
The price of poker suddenly goes up after June 2007, and afterward in January 2010 and everyone else cries foul. It's because they can't be bothered to step up their game. Which is exactly why Apple does so well in the market. Apple is terrified of stagnation. Everyone else is terrified of work.
The real problem here isn't the patent system. It's everyone else's LAZINESS. Too much work to do it better. Oh well. I'm sure they'll appreciate your sympathy as they circle the drain. Because they'll get none whatsoever from me.
Innovation means creating a new method, look it up. This isn't a new method, this is a slightly different method based on existing tech. They are expanding something, not innovating, which they shouldn't be able to patent.
The typical way of handling face detection AF is using the focus value from face region. This is not necessary same thing that "acclerating the AF based on face detection". Are they reltaed? sure... Will those are considered same in patent world? I don't think so.
The only purpose of face detection AF is to make sure face gets good focus from camera. I'm sure this feature is done by many company. It seems like what apple claims is that they can reduce the AF search range by using the face detecton data.
They are not claiming the right for face detecton AF or not even new way of doing face detectiion AF. I think what they claiming is basically "improving AF speed using face detection data". I am not very sure if anyone already done this or not before Apple (I think that is the work for patent office) but it is not certainly very common idea like just plain "face detection AF".
Just because something appears to do the same thing does not mean it does the same thing. The 789 patent is fairly detailed. It describes a specific approach. It is conceivable that the Panasonic method is different. Apple did not patent exposure control based on face recognition. They patented a method of doing that.
Don't let all the hyperbole from the software patent haters confuse you.
So you're saying it's ok even if it looks and functions the same, as long as the underlying mechanism is different?
I think you need to rethink your statement, because you just completely invalidated Apple's suit against Samsung.
Is it because you don't run Apple and aren't responsible for protecting its greatest asset (intellectual property) and aren't responsible to shareholders?
Probably.
WAKE UP. There are billions of dollars at stake here. If you were running Apple, you would do exactly the same thing, if not more.
As far as "innovation" goes, if the rest of the industry feels it can't innovate around Apple's implementation of tech, then it's a pretty sad state of affairs for the industry outside Cupertino: one that is beset by galactic laziness and a lack of imagination. This is what happens when you sit on your hands and let a leaner, meaner, faster competitor run away with the market. And a smarter one, too, that used the same patent system that is open to everyone else.
If "smaller" companies feel they can't innovate, it's their fault. They will come and go and live and die until someone comes along who can innovate.
The price of poker suddenly goes up after June 2007, and afterward in January 2010 and everyone else cries foul. It's because they can't be bothered to step up their game. Which is exactly why Apple does so well in the market. Apple is terrified of stagnation. Everyone else is terrified of work.
The real problem here isn't the patent system. It's everyone else's LAZINESS. Too much work to do it better. Oh well. I'm sure they'll appreciate your sympathy as they circle the drain. Because they'll get none whatsoever from me.
Apple is patenting the wedge, and tech that other companies have already had on the market for years, but they're the INNOVATIVE ones?
Yup, chug that Koolaid, because you clearly swallowed any objectivity you had a long time ago.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
"Apple notes the invention saves time by eschewing the sweep of positions a moveable lens assembly goes through to find optimal focus in some existing autofocus systems."
Do you not think that other camera manufacturers are doing the same type of thing? The technology has been around for a long time (years before Apple filed their patent applications). Of course other manufacturers are looking at details like the percentage of the frame the faces occupy to help with AF speed, also taking things like Depth of Field for a given focal length and aperture into consideration to accelerate AF performance. The Apple patent assumes the use of very old AF technology in it's filings.
If companies like Minolta (with their camera related technology now owned by Sony) released their algorithms for technology being used to improve AF speed based on subject detection and percentage of the frame occupied, and (even before digital cameras were popular), I think you'll find that the Apple patent is based on prior art. AF technology used by today's digital cameras is very sophisticated, as it has been for years before Apple filed these patent applications.
This is just another example of a broken patent system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Cockfield
and only companies with substantial resources can defend themselves against frivolous patent litigation
Why do you assume it's frivolous?
Is it because you don't run Apple and aren't responsible for protecting its greatest asset (intellectual property) and aren't responsible to shareholders?
Probably.
WAKE UP. There are billions of dollars at stake here. If you were running Apple, you would do exactly the same thing, if not more.
As far as "innovation" goes, if the rest of the industry feels it can't innovate around Apple's implementation of tech, then it's a pretty sad state of affairs for the industry outside Cupertino: one that is beset by galactic laziness and a lack of imagination. This is what happens when you sit on your hands and let a leaner, meaner, faster competitor run away with the market. And a smarter one, too, that used the same patent system that is open to everyone else.
If "smaller" companies feel they can't innovate, it's their fault. They will come and go and live and die until someone comes along who can innovate.
The price of poker suddenly goes up after June 2007, and afterward in January 2010 and everyone else cries foul. It's because they can't be bothered to step up their game. Which is exactly why Apple does so well in the market. Apple is terrified of stagnation. Everyone else is terrified of work.
The real problem here isn't the patent system. It's everyone else's LAZINESS. Too much work to do it better. Oh well. I'm sure they'll appreciate your sympathy as they circle the drain. Because they'll get none whatsoever from me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Why do you assume it's frivolous?
read the entire post from which you responded; its latter half answers your question.
Innovation means creating a new method, look it up. This isn't a new method, this is a slightly different method based on existing tech. They are expanding something, not innovating, which they shouldn't be able to patent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72
read the entire post from which you responded; its latter half answers your question.
We'll let the courts decide that, if and when the time comes.
The typical way of handling face detection AF is using the focus value from face region. This is not necessary same thing that "acclerating the AF based on face detection". Are they reltaed? sure... Will those are considered same in patent world? I don't think so.
The only purpose of face detection AF is to make sure face gets good focus from camera. I'm sure this feature is done by many company. It seems like what apple claims is that they can reduce the AF search range by using the face detecton data.
They are not claiming the right for face detecton AF or not even new way of doing face detectiion AF. I think what they claiming is basically "improving AF speed using face detection data". I am not very sure if anyone already done this or not before Apple (I think that is the work for patent office) but it is not certainly very common idea like just plain "face detection AF".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wovel
Just because something appears to do the same thing does not mean it does the same thing. The 789 patent is fairly detailed. It describes a specific approach. It is conceivable that the Panasonic method is different. Apple did not patent exposure control based on face recognition. They patented a method of doing that.
Don't let all the hyperbole from the software patent haters confuse you.
So you're saying it's ok even if it looks and functions the same, as long as the underlying mechanism is different?
I think you need to rethink your statement, because you just completely invalidated Apple's suit against Samsung.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Why do you assume it's frivolous?
Is it because you don't run Apple and aren't responsible for protecting its greatest asset (intellectual property) and aren't responsible to shareholders?
Probably.
WAKE UP. There are billions of dollars at stake here. If you were running Apple, you would do exactly the same thing, if not more.
As far as "innovation" goes, if the rest of the industry feels it can't innovate around Apple's implementation of tech, then it's a pretty sad state of affairs for the industry outside Cupertino: one that is beset by galactic laziness and a lack of imagination. This is what happens when you sit on your hands and let a leaner, meaner, faster competitor run away with the market. And a smarter one, too, that used the same patent system that is open to everyone else.
If "smaller" companies feel they can't innovate, it's their fault. They will come and go and live and die until someone comes along who can innovate.
The price of poker suddenly goes up after June 2007, and afterward in January 2010 and everyone else cries foul. It's because they can't be bothered to step up their game. Which is exactly why Apple does so well in the market. Apple is terrified of stagnation. Everyone else is terrified of work.
The real problem here isn't the patent system. It's everyone else's LAZINESS. Too much work to do it better. Oh well. I'm sure they'll appreciate your sympathy as they circle the drain. Because they'll get none whatsoever from me.
Apple is patenting the wedge, and tech that other companies have already had on the market for years, but they're the INNOVATIVE ones?
Yup, chug that Koolaid, because you clearly swallowed any objectivity you had a long time ago.