Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Microsoft Granted A Patent For GPU Video Encoding

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Well, great! Then in court, when Microsoft will have to prove
    non-obviousness again, insiders like you can testify for the
    defense - nvidia or whoever can possibly get sued.
    However, if what you're saying is true, the patent is junk and
    nobody will ever get sued.
    Many times it is the case that patent office will grant a patent if
    it's not sure, because during the trial the whole patent procedure
    (like proving the first inventor and non-obviousness) has to repeated,
    and all potential mistakes of the patent office wouldn't matter.
    It creates these junk patents, that make the news in non-legal,
    opinionated websites.

    Quote Originally Posted by movieman View Post
    I was working on GPUs in 2004 and I can guarantee you that using them for video encoding was pretty damn obvious. If I remember correctly we were even talking with
    a third-party about using GPUs for video encoding before then.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,929

    Default

    This is absolutely amazing.

    A patent on running a program on a processor. :/

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    325

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aznabaal View Post
    Many times it is the case that patent office will grant a patent if
    it's not sure, because during the trial the whole patent procedure
    (like proving the first inventor and non-obviousness) has to repeated,
    and all potential mistakes of the patent office wouldn't matter.
    It creates these junk patents, that make the news in non-legal,
    opinionated websites.
    This is the real problem in the system, because for anyone OUTSIDE the legal profession it creates a nasty quagmire of confusion which can only be resolved by having expensive lawyers to protect you... Which if you aren't a major corporation, you can't afford.

    And you say this doesn't matter?

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11

    Default

    I agree. In general lawyer's services in the US are too expensive and it applies to patent law but also to many other issues
    like medical or labor law suits. It is the characteristic of US legal system not a patent system per se.

    However, in many cases it does not matter.
    There are situations in which small business
    is working on a technology that can violate one of these junk patents.
    If the implementation is inferior to the incumbent's implementation
    then the incumbent will usually not sue. If it's better the incumbent
    will acquire it and incorporate the invention.
    Usually we see lawsuits only in case someone big is infringing the patent.

    Quote Originally Posted by RobbieAB View Post
    This is the real problem in the system, because for anyone OUTSIDE the legal profession it creates a nasty quagmire of confusion which can only be resolved by having expensive lawyers to protect you... Which if you aren't a major corporation, you can't afford.

    And you say this doesn't matter?

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aznabaal View Post
    It is not possible since it does not meet the non-obviousness patentability requirement.
    Then why would this patent be any different? All it is patenting is doing vector processing on a GPU, which, by definition, at the date the application was filed, was pretty obvious (libSH was produced in 2003...which was one of the first GPGPU type frameworks allowing for a lot more than rendering shaders to be developed- and it was only ONE of several around at the time.)

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    11

    Default

    I am not sure because I don't know this particular patent.
    But, it must be protecting something more specific than vector operations,
    because I am sure that patent office was aware of existing implementations.
    We would have to dissect the text of the patent the private thread if you'd like to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Svartalf View Post
    Then why would this patent be any different? All it is patenting is doing vector processing on a GPU, which, by definition, at the date the application was filed, was pretty obvious (libSH was produced in 2003...which was one of the first GPGPU type frameworks allowing for a lot more than rendering shaders to be developed- and it was only ONE of several around at the time.)

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    58

    Default

    I''m not an american, so I couldn't do it.
    But if I were, I should start patenting every crazy idea that I had, so I would probably cover many areas in computing.
    It should work as a protest against software patents.
    As I can see, US is becoming a place where only the monopolists giants can say what can be done and what can't.
    Patenting in software is a way to barrier software competition and you, americans, should fight against it.
    Patents are being confounded with copyrights.
    Everyone should be able to implement whatever the wish, as long as they don't copy.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aznabaal View Post
    I am not sure because I don't know this particular patent.
    But, it must be protecting something more specific than vector operations,
    because I am sure that patent office was aware of existing implementations.
    You presume too much of the USPTO. Seriously.

    I have made a patent application to them in the past. The application was rejected on some of the most ludicrous grounds. If I had not ran out of funds, it'd probably would have been granted eventually.

    The application in question was a hybrid hardware/software solution and I was patenting the specific system configuration so as to not be overbroad and to NOT have an idiot software patent (Though nail down a pretty large range of implementations of a fairly secure SCADA solution...). The examiner HAD to have taken a bong hit before doing the work on my patent as they rejected it outright, claiming that several utterly irrelevant patents to mine that ALSO mentioned RPC as a component in the early claims anticipated my patent. My attorney, after a thorough explanation of what was wrong, had come to the conclusion they needed to lay the crack pipe down.

    I don't give them any benefit of the doubt on this stuff- they almost never get it right. Never.

    We would have to dissect the text of the patent the private thread if you'd like to.
    Indeed one would probably have to dissect the patent. However, based on the title of the application, the odds are pretty good it's an overbroad patent that should have never been given the time of day.

    However, I intend on doing a dissection of it here shortly to verify that statement as being accurate or not.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,132

    Default

    Was this article pulled?

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    624

    Default

    This patent bullshit is not a surprise to me. What else would you all expect from the country where about 80% of all wealth is owned by a few?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •