|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 24 2013 @ 10:18 PM EDT |
Interesting timing on Nokia's part, don't you think? It's like a
bomb went off in the room, or at least inside my
head. Why didn't Nokia mention
them earlier, one wonders? These are old patents. So they had to know earlier, I
would think.
It might have had something to do with Google's
agreement with
MPEG-LA, of which Nokia is not a member, and thus would not have been a
party to any consultation, nor
had much inside information on the deal. Also
Nokia seems confident in its pursuit of HTC thru
the German courts:
Florian Mueller writes in his patent blog
(http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/patent-clouds-remain-over-
vp8-google.html)
that he has attended a court hearing in Mannheim, Germany, where, according to
his blog, "Counsel for Nokia
indeed based the infringement allegation in no
small part on what the specifications of the Google-controlled VP8 standard say,
which is an unmistakable sign that Nokia considers EP1206881 to be inevitably
infringed by all implementations of VP8."
Now, I understand that Mr.
Mueller is not particularly highly regarded by a whole bunch of people in the
open source
community. I myself find a number of other statements in this blog
post, however carefully worded, somewhat questionable.
OTOH, I consider it
very unlikely that he made up all those reported facts. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Quote? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 24 2013 @ 11:29 PM EDT
- Quote? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 08:19 AM EDT
- Why Now? - Authored by: globularity on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 09:00 AM EDT
- Why Now? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 03:06 PM EDT
- Why Now? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 03:24 PM EDT
- a firstpost troll? - Authored by: designerfx on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 11:13 AM EDT
- a firstpost troll? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 11:54 AM EDT
- no - Authored by: designerfx on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 12:57 PM EDT
- no - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 01:18 PM EDT
- Florian quote - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 02:57 PM EDT
- Good News - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 12:24 PM EDT
|
Authored by: artp on Sunday, March 24 2013 @ 10:48 PM EDT |
"Erorr" -> "Error" in TItle Block if possible, please.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Sunday, March 24 2013 @ 10:50 PM EDT |
If there is prior art, stay away from the topic. All
discussions must be completely original, therefore totally
inhuman.
Thank you.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Funny Title - Authored by: kawabago on Sunday, March 24 2013 @ 11:30 PM EDT
- Funny Title - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 09:05 AM EDT
- Funny Title - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 10:03 AM EDT
- Tin Foil Hat - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 01:04 AM EDT
- Internet Will Not Be Another TV (poster) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 01:33 AM EDT
- Washington Post Defends Not Running Article On Iraq Media Failure - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 06:23 AM EDT
- Hotmail copyright - Authored by: squib on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 02:21 PM EDT
- Hotmail copyright - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 03:45 PM EDT
- Hotmail copyright - Authored by: Wol on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 04:53 PM EDT
- Are you sure? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 05:13 PM EDT
- Are you sure? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 05:33 PM EDT
- Cool Science - Prince Rupert’s Drop: The Curious Properties of a Molten Glass Blob - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 09:03 PM EDT
- Supreme Court weighs deals to delay generic drugs - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 10:53 PM EDT
- Aaron Swartz Prosecutor Carmen Ortiz Admonished In 2004 For Aggressive Tactic - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 02:29 AM EDT
- Ad industry has attacked Mozilla over its decision to block third-party cookies - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:02 AM EDT
- OSnews take on the VP8 patents: "We have been here before" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:23 AM EDT
- Pervasive sequence patents cover the entire human genome - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 10:53 AM EDT
- MS is forcing Skype on you. Skype leaks your location. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 12:01 PM EDT
- 30 Months For Potential Murder? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 03:12 PM EDT
- Laptop Ads - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 04:27 PM EDT
- Laptop Ads - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:03 PM EDT
- Laptop Ads - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 05:15 AM EDT
- Laptop Ads - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 10:51 PM EDT
- Laptop Ads - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 01:38 AM EDT
- Laptop Ads - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 04:09 PM EDT
- Realtime Report Keyword in lawsuits filed - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 06:17 PM EDT
- Google Glass May Not Be Welcome for Drivers in West Virginia - Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 09:55 AM EDT
|
Authored by: artp on Sunday, March 24 2013 @ 10:52 PM EDT |
URL, please.
Where, oh where did my sidebar scroll? Where, oh where could
it be?
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Another Reason Google Reader Died: Increased Concern About Privacy and Compliance - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 07:19 AM EDT
- 'Monsanto Protection Act' Sneaks through Senate - Authored by: hardmath on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 11:01 AM EDT
- "Rather Than Fix The CFAA, House Judiciary Committee Planning To Make It Worse... Way Worse" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 03:21 PM EDT
- WebRTC Codec patent? We've been here before. - Authored by: symbolset on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 12:28 AM EDT
- Ad industry threatens Firefox users - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 01:01 AM EDT
- Chromebook and the low cost of being accessible - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 04:51 AM EDT
- ogooglebart (Eng. ungoogleable) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 12:41 PM EDT
- Bingable? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 01:03 PM EDT
- unsearchable - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 04:22 PM EDT
- unsearchable - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 05:37 PM EDT
- ogooglebart (Eng. ungoogleable) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 01:28 AM EDT
- Lawsuit claiming MMS services are like Napster finally fails - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 01:02 PM EDT
- Beijing Takes Another Bite at Apple - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 05:25 PM EDT
- Windows 'Blue' shows desktop's days are numbered - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 05:34 PM EDT
- CNet: Google-Nokia face off in video codec dispute - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 02:21 PM EDT
|
Authored by: artp on Sunday, March 24 2013 @ 10:55 PM EDT |
See the link above for "Comes v. MS" for complete details.
More work to be done and so little time to do it.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 2848 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 05:46 PM EDT
- 2848 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 06:34 PM EDT
- 2851 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 11:30 PM EDT
|
Authored by: artp on Sunday, March 24 2013 @ 11:24 PM EDT |
The difficulty lies in determining exactly what it was
that you designed it
to do. :-)
As I read the article, a couple of points jump out at
me.
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?
Risch
states:
Their counter argument is that continuations are
necessary because patentees often don't know the full scope
of what's a new
invention when they file.
I'm sure that there are many legal
application of the
continuation. Engineers, after all, create many tools to do
their work. We should expect no less of other professions.
We can expect that
they will use appropriate levels of
ethics, though, and continuations seem to
have bled over
that boundary.
Second, PJ addresses the impossibility of
ever getting rid
of a patent application for good.
The article,
for example, describes how
applicants work to wear an examiner down: "There is
no way
an examiner can ever cause a determined applicant to go
away, though
allowing the applicant’s patent claims will
increase the chance that the case
will finally be disposed
of."
When we were raising our kids,
we subscribed to the
strategies of John Rosemond. Rosemond was big on figuring
out what "natural and logical consequences" would be for
undesirable behavior.
IOW, how do I make the child care more
about their behavior than I do?
I
would suggest that one way to let patentees bear the
burden of their bad
choices would be to put their
application at the bottom of the pile if they
file a
continuation. That creates space at the top for other
applicants who
have not yet had a shot at approval. It
doesn't reject the application
completely, it just rewards
the continuation applicant with the natural and
logical
consequences of their strategy. Their decision - their
delay.
As
it stands now, any consequences for continuations fall on
everybody BUT the
applicant. The applicant gets to go to the
well until the bottom drops out of
the bucket, but is still
able to haul water in it.
My proposal just
allocates some of the delay to the
applicant, who has created the situation by
their own
desires. They can take that into account when they decide
whether
to apply for a continuation or not. Their choice.
If Rosemond's theories are
correct, the applicants will find
a way around this, just like children do. So
we will have to
find a different way of making them care about their
misbehavior more than we do. And do not doubt for a second
that it is
misbehavior. They are using more than their fair
share of resources, and are
not playing nicely with others.
This is antisocial behavior, and must not be
tolerated, or
civilization will come crumbling down around our ears. And
before you know it, someone will be patenting rounded
corners, rectangles and
software. ;-)
--- Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: macliam on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 12:33 AM EDT |
If you examine the continuations, you should find that the specification is
the same for all of them. For example, I was looking at US6735249, US7149251
and US20070140342. And yes, if you look at the specifications, there might be
an introductory sentence or so to say that you have a continuation. In these
patents section of the the '251 patent entitled CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED
APPLICATION begins:
This Application is a continuation of
U.S. Patent Application… now U.S. Pat. No.
6,735,249.
Then, in theory at least, the two patent
specifications should continue to match up, word for word—until you reach
the list of claims. Then the patent documents will diverge. The diagrams
should also match up. Basically, the continuation just piles extra claims that
read on the embodiment disclosed in the first patent (in this case the '249
patent).
Basically, to people unfamiliar with patent law, the two
inventions are the same invention. But, to patent lawyers and judges,
each claim is a separate ‘invention’. You should find independent
claims followed by lists of dependent claims that progressively narrow the scope
of the claim. But otherwise, the claims are treated as separate inventions. A
method or apparatus infringes one of these patents, provided that Nokia can
prove that at least one patent claim reads on the allegedly infringing
device, i.e., that the device matches the text of the claim as the claim
language would be interpreted by a person having ordinary skill in the relevant
art. To invalidate the claim, you need to prove that the specific claim
reads on a device that was prior art back in 1999.
It is no good
just finding an example of ‘prior art’ that resembles the
embodiment disclosed in the '249 specification. The degree of
resemblence, or lack of resemblence, between the alleged infringing method or
apparatus and the prior art method or apparatus and the embodiment
disclosed in the '249 specification is totally irrelevant for purposes of
determining infringement or proving invalidity. All that matters is whether or
not the infringing technology or the prior art technology comes within the
scope of the claim, when that claim is given its broadest interpretation
consistent with the specification.
Thus continuations are a way of
piling on claim after claim to catch more allegedly infringing technologies in
the net, or to provide fallbacks if claims previously made are invalidated. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- US 6,735,249 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 02:30 AM EDT
- 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
- Argument - Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 03:30 AM EDT
- Continuations - Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 08:19 AM EDT
- You 'invent' without knowing it. Experience the Aha! 8 years later. Submit Continuation.-n/t - Authored by: macliam on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 10:53 AM EDT
- Discovering invention later - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 03:26 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 05:55 AM EDT |
I'm so disappointed with Nokia :/
I can't say anything but micro$oft touch of death... and I feel no more
sentiment for nokia dying after their stupid move to windows 8.
The sad thing is that one can be sued for patents that he never knew about. So
in this case how can the patent be non-obvious? What is the rational behind
paying damages?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 06:47 AM EDT |
If Nokia sues anybody who uses the wemb then they do not
have possibility to use webm at all in any devices. There
are some standards that will have webm as must and if Im not
wrong websocket is one of those. So if WP will implement
websocket then Nokia can not sell WP anymore.
Basicly only thing Google needs to do is force webm on
youtube for all mobile devices if its not the case already.
Problem solved.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- VP8 licence - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 07:42 AM EDT
- VP8 licence - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 07:51 AM EDT
- VP8 licence - Authored by: webster on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 08:25 AM EDT
- Bit of a worry - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 03:56 PM EDT
- Bit of a worry - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 01:25 PM EDT
- VP8 licence - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 06:36 AM EDT
- VP8 licence - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:00 AM EDT
- VP8 licence - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 03:40 PM EDT
- VP8 licence - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 12:32 AM EDT
|
Authored by: jesse on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 07:30 AM EDT |
Appears to be what is commonly known as "dithering".
In this case, specifically to hide the edges of blocks of the image.
Dithering goes way back to WW2, done by motorized vibrators to allow more
precise bombing runs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Dithering - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 08:55 AM EDT
- Dither - Authored by: JamesK on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 12:07 PM EDT
- US 6504873 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 07:14 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 08:35 AM EDT |
Before starting in on the "search" could someone please help
clarify two or
three points for me:
Nokia (a Microsoft partner) claims that their
'infringed'
patents are necessary for the new 'Standard' and will
not
license these under any terms, SEP FRAND etc.. This
is to
kill
the 'new' standard - not to make money from it -
maintaining
H.264 as their favoured "open and collaborative"
method?
Does this mean that these same patents have been
'committed'
to Mpeg LA under the SEP rule as FRAND - since Nokia (even
as an MS partner and counter to MS interests?) did not
contribute to
the patent pool - as the problems with such
members have already been
overcome.
Surely this means that they already successfully license
these as a part of H.264, SEP covered by FRAND (as
Motorola)?
If
not, then are they claiming that it is only the new VP8
Standard that
infringes or would H.264 infringe if they
chose to assert them?
How
to view their relationship with other H.264
Patents -
as potential
prior art against Nokia or vice versa
underpinning, or building on H.264 -
bozo tweaks or what?
Do the Nokia Patents have to be stand on their own?
Perhaps
in a sense as 'fundamental' to H.264 or can they be an
'intermediate' stage, themselves relying and building
on (and
citing?) donated H.264 patents to give them
their
"essential" aspect? Do individual "claims" have to be
seen as
part of, within a standard or as "standalone
claims"?
As another
complication, can the Nokia (non-MPEG LA)/MS
'partnership' alter any of
these questions? Maybe not
directly in this case but in how these patents
had
previously
been asserted against, or licensed to members of MPEG LA
and on what basis - fair and non-discriminatory or
favourable
to MS? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 10:00 AM EDT |
After ding a quick search on the 2 Australian patents I have some additional
information
30275/01 -> http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDet
ails.do?applicationNo=2001030275
Application number :
2001030275
Title : A method and associated device for filtering digital
video images
Applicant(s) : Nokia Corporation
Inventor(s) : Aksu, Emre;
Kalevo, Ossi; Karczewicz, Marta
Filing date : 2001-01-22
Application
status : GRANTED
---------------------------------
2007311526 ->
http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspt/applicationDetai
ls.do?applicationNo=2007311526
Application number : 2007311526
Title
: System and method for providing picture output indications in video
coding
Applicant(s) : Nokia Corporation
Inventor(s) : Wang, Ye-Kui;
Hannuksela, Miska
Filing date : 2007-08-29
Application status :
GRANTED
--- IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2013 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 12:18 PM EDT |
Nokia is based in Finland. From Helsinki, the capital of
Finland, to Talinn, the capital of Estonia, is a two-hour
ferry ride. As I understand it, Finnish and Estonian (and
Hungarian-Magyar), form a language group unlike anything else
(can anybody elaborate in a reply?), so maybe some linguistic
subtleties can be buried in their patents. I'm also
interested that countries like Turkey and Vietnam are there.
Perhaps it has to do with the nationality of the employee
that produced the "idea".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 05:43 PM EDT |
I took a look a this and, to me, it reads like poorly written,
poorly formatted gobbledygook with a few mathematical
equations thrown in. From what little I can make out of it,
it looks like another dithering scheme.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 08:42 PM EDT |
Shouldn't we insist that an inventor wait until the innovation process is
complete before filling.
Take the example of two inventors both working on a similar device.
Traditionally who ever is smarter finishes first and gets the patent. What
companies are doing now is patenting before they finish the work to cut off
others that may be working on similar devices.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: macliam on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 05:47 AM EDT |
Say you have a video of a ball rotating and flying through the air. You have
a reference frame, and you want to encode a current frame (say) one second
later. To construct the later frame, you divide up into 16x16 pixel 'segments'.
For each segment, you find a portion of the previous image that bests matches
the current image for that segment, and specify the coefficients a, b, c, d, e,
f for a motion sending (x,y) to (a + cx + ey, b + dx + fy) that maps the current
segment to the portion of the reference frame that most resembles it (which will
probably be an image of the moving rotating ball at the earlier time whereever
it was in the frame). Then you transmit the six motion coefficients (probably
with other information that allows for improving the image). So far, this seems
to be in the prior art. What makes this invention novel is that, instead of
using the motion coefficients determined by the current frame, it may make sense
to use those of the frame immediately to the left, or immediately above,
suitably transformed. If you can do so, then you need to transmit less
information. Therefore you determine which of the various methods (using
coefficients calculating coefficients for the current frame, or reusing them
from a frame to the left or above, assuming left to right, top to bottom
encoding) gives the better compression, and then transmit data accordingly. So
the following questions. Does the proposed standard do things this way? Is
there any prior art teaching using using the affine motion model with
transformed coeefficients from neighboring frames? Is there something else in
one of Nokia's other claims teaching something different that might be
infringed? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
htt
p://pdf.aminer.org/000/389/918/constra
ints_for_the_estimatio
n_of_displacement_vector_fields_from_image.pdf
<
p>The article is, as far as I can tell, from 1983. It talks
abouth oriented
smoothness of vector field and minimization
function.
ABSTRACT
Smoothness constraints have been used to
facilitate the
estimation of displacement vector fields.
Differing from HORN
and SCHUNCK 81 who employ a
general smoothness requirement, this contribution
reports an analysis of an "oriented smoothness"
requirement: a change in the
displacement vector
field is only constrained in the direction perpendicular to
the characteristic gray value variation
based on which the displacement vector
is estimated. An
iterative solution for the resulting
system of nonlinear
partial differential equations is
developed. It is shown how this system of
equations relates to the one derived by HORN and
SCHUNCK
81.
/Peter [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 04:17 PM EDT |
In order to find prior art I guess it would help to understand the claims of the
patents. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:35 PM EDT |
1999 'state of the art' academic survey of compression
techniques:
application_of_the_minimum_description _length_prin
ciple_to_object_ori
ented.pdf
This paper from Roger J. Clarke
Department of Computing and
Electrical Engineering,
Heriot-Watt University,Edinburgh
might help
some of us to understand the state of the art
about
the
time that
Nokia were filing the first patents. In
particular,
there is an
extensive list of references which might
provide
links or leads to
prior art - if you can gain access? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:37 PM EDT |
Ideally we want prior art for every single claim in every single patent. That
is huge, however. The fear then is that we concentrate in some areas and not
others. As a first measure we should make sure that there is some prior art
against each "independent" claim. I've put together a list for each
patent and will post them separately so that it's easy to record where there is
something missing. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 6504873 - independent claims 1, 10, 13 & 14 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:39 PM EDT
- 6735249 - Independent claims 1, 25 & 41 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:41 PM EDT
- 20040165664 / 7149251 - Independent claims 1 & 13 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:43 PM EDT
- 6,735,249 / 20070140342 - Independent claims 1 & 13 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:45 PM EDT
- 20010017942 / 6907142 - Independent claims 1, 34, 46, 53 & 54 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:47 PM EDT
- 20050254717 / 7295713 - Independent claims 1, 5 & 7 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:50 PM EDT
- 20010017944 - Independent claims 1, 19, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:52 PM EDT
- 20080095228 - Prov. app. No. 60/853,215 - Independent claims, 1, 15, 27, 41, 53 and 54 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 01:33 AM EDT
- 6711211 / 09/566020 - Independent claims - 1, 25 and 41 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 01:40 AM EDT
- 6954502 - Independent claims - 1, 3 and 34 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 01:45 AM EDT
- 20060013317 - Independent claim 1 - only claim included - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 01:48 AM EDT
- 20080247657 / 7567719 - Independent claims - 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15 and 19 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 01:54 AM EDT
- Motion Model vs motion vector in Nokia's motion-predictive-encoding patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 02:49 AM EDT
- Listing Independent Claims per Patent - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 03:59 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 01:20 AM EDT |
There is a basic problem with claiming that the VP8 spec
infringes '249. '249 is an encoding-efficiency patent. VP8
is a decoding specification.
VP8 follows a very common practice in video codec standards
specifications: it defines a "reference decoder" and a
bitstream format. The specification tells you precisely what
images a compliant decoder will render when it receives any
specific valid bitstream. There are many different
bitstreams that result in the same (or nearly the same)
video playback. You, as a person building or writing an
encoder, may exhibit great cleverness in finding the
smallest bitstream which plays the video you're sending with
acceptable quality. Bully for you! The standard does not
*require* you to be clever about encoding, nor to be clever
in any particular way.
Thus encoding-efficiency techniques (like '249) are hardly
ever "standards-essential" for codecs, because the standard
doesn't require you to encode efficiently.
All three of '249's independent claims (1, 25, and 41)
specifically claim a method for choosing between two
alternative motion vector encodings. Even if the choice they
describe is possible in VP8 (I'm not convinced it is), there
is no need to make the choice in the manner they describe in
order to write an encoder.
In a different context, it might be considered responsible
citizenship for Nokia to let encoder-designers know that
some of the clever ideas they might come up with for
efficient encoding have been patented. However here, where
the implication seems to be "these patents are essential and
we won't license them", it is BS in the finest FUD
tradition.
IMHO we can cross '249 off the list of patents blocking VP8
adoption.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 06:20 AM EDT |
.
Isn't this call Equitable Estoppel?
Because these are old patents
(mostly), which Nokia
knew about and just when the IETF was to reach a
consensus then up jump Nokia deciding to release these
patents in a
discriminated way to block VP8 adoption.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
Hi,
Patents from several countries with the publication and Grant number
above seem to be translations of a European patent to several languages/national
patent systems.
Link to the Swedish patent summary page
Link to the Swedish patent document (pdf)
Link to the European
patent summary page
Link to the European patent document (pdf)
Stéphane[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 01:54 AM EDT |
Update: Here's a chart showing how long a random set
of patents that issued
in 2012.....
Was there suppose to be a link showing a chart?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|