|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 02:30 AM EDT |
So here's an a
overview of VP8.
Section
5.2 VP8 Inter Prediction Modes, and Fig. 3, mention
copying motion vectors from
adjacent macroblocks or
subblocks. This is the area that '249 is relevant to.
The
idea of copying macroblock motion vectors predates the
patent (e.g.
Chalidabhongse & Kuo 1997 ), so this
may not be so much a basic patent
as an "improvement patent"
that covers some very specific techniques for
implementing a
well-known method. Perhaps these claims read on VP8, perhaps
not, perhaps the claims can be coded around. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Identify 'improvement' in '249 over Chalidabhongse, see how claimed, in VP8? -n/t - Authored by: macliam on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 04:23 AM EDT
- Identify 'improvement' in '249 over Chalidabhongse, see how claimed, in VP8? -n/t - Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 10:07 PM EDT
- Identify 'improvement' in '249 over Chalidabhongse, see how claimed, in VP8? -n/t - Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 10:22 PM EDT
- Identify 'improvement' in '249 over Chalidabhongse, see how claimed, in VP8? -n/t - Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 10:24 PM EDT
- Identify 'improvement' in '249 over Chalidabhongse, see how claimed, in VP8? -n/t - Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 10:27 PM EDT
- Identify 'improvement' in '249 over Chalidabhongse, see how claimed, in VP8? -n/t - Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 10:36 PM EDT
- Identify 'improvement' in '249 over Chalidabhongse, see how claimed, in VP8? -n/t - Authored by: macliam on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 04:26 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 03:30 AM EDT |
artp made, what seemed to me to be, a very level headed
comment:First, it appears that there is no need for a continuation
on a patent from an engineering standpoint. You either invented something or you
didn't. If you didn't, then you don't get a patent. You either understand what
you invented or you don't. If you don't, then you can't write the patent
application. What is the difficulty here?
I have fulminated in the
past about the courts treating each independent claim as an independent
protected invention and this continues to appear illegal to me according to
§112. However, apart from this, I think I can see the patent lawyers' argument
about continuations.
You commented that:It is no good just
finding an example of ‘prior art’ that resembles the embodiment disclosed in the
'249 specification.
The strong implication is that court and
patent lawyers are protecting the abstract ideas that lead to the invention
embodiment. Any other real embodiments of the abstract idea can be encompassed
by new claims and a continuation.
I haven't read your opus under the
previous article in any depth yet, but I will return to it to see if it shines a
light in this direction. For the moment, it would appear that Bilski says that
claims that address abstract ideas are invalid, but the Supremes have not given
us enough to demonstrate that this is violated by the practice of continuations.
I'm sure that the patenting engineer sees the embodiment as the
invention. The claims are just lawyer flimflam to patent the ideas behind the
invention and any other inventions that can be captured with new claims to allow
the patent to be monetized.
--- Regards
Ian Al
Software Patents: It's the disclosed functions in the patent, stupid! [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 08:19 AM EDT |
Yes, thank you for explaining. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: macliam on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 10:53 AM EDT |
. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 03:26 PM EDT |
I don't remember where I saw it, but two guys discussing inventing something,
and its obviousness, and one remarks "Yeah, I thought of it as soon as I
saw it."
Probably worked for Apple.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|