Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 73

Thread: The S3TC Patent Might Be Invalid

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    More colors are useless because not a single consimer panel supports correct colors (like the Adobe standard). The cheapest true color panel is sold by Dell for 800 euro's and is LCD...

    Now software patents; they are not useless because hardware must be involved. We live in an age where embedded systems are everywhere and large part of the magic happens in software. However being able to patent obvious shit like floating point on a piece of PC hardware is far from an invention that gets us anywhere near a better product offering that we wouldn't have got without the patent, anyway...
    That's why I said we need 32 bit panels. =)

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    No you don't get it. I'd take picture perfect 16bit over consumer grade "OMG full HD 2 Ultra 128 billion color 3D!!!!111 one one eleven".

    The point is, is that black is actually displayed as a dancing dark purple disco and white is more close to ultra bright yellow.

    You can have 269 billion shades of red, but that doesn't make my dark black shadow, look like a dark black shadow...
    Last edited by V!NCENT; 09-16-2011 at 11:20 AM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    399

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    No you don't get it. I'd take picture perfect 16bit over consumer grade "OMG full HD 2 Ultra 128 billion color 3D!!!!111 one one eleven".

    The point is, is that black is actually displayed as a dancing dark purple disco and white is more close to ultra bright yellow.

    You can have 269 billion shades of red, but that doesn't make my dark black shadow, look like a dark black shadow...
    Well I get it, I'm saying "We need kick-ass screens", and you're saying "No, screens suck, so you can't have that". I'm not saying somebody should peddle some crap as fantastic, just because they have some PR numbers, I'm saying "We should have awesome panels that can show better black, better white, light like the sun and black like complete darkness that sucks the light from the room, and infinite resolution in between". And you're just boring. I think you're the one that doesn't get it.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    You still don't get it... *sigh*

    Stop being a stupid label wearing and stamping consumer.

    The point is not more colors and more beatiful colors, but C-O-R-R-E-C-T colors.

    Likewise a 3D panel isn't cool, if it isn't 3D at all, but merely a brain fscking illusion. But hey; we got this effect we can sell! Moar bcuzz MOAR!!! BETTER FASTER, YESTERDAY!!!

    I bet you're going to buy an AMOLED screen soon, because it can paint pitch black, black, even though the correct color is suposed to be dark grey, just so your colors are more awzzzumz0rs 'n shit....

    I realy hope you were sarcastic...
    Last edited by V!NCENT; 09-16-2011 at 12:04 PM.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    917

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    I bet you're going to buy an AMOLED screen soon, because it can paint pitch black, black, even though the correct color is suposed to be dark grey
    Yes, I will. I have a 3000$ professional ultra wide gamut monitor and I can assure you AMOLED has the most correct colors in the world in comparison
    The whole thing about sRGB is simply stupid and outdated, everything should be color managed in the 2011: photos, video and the whole gui. If you don't own a spectrophotometer it should default to canned profiles.
    But in the real world there is no color managed video player in linux (there were patches for mplayer but they never reached mainline) and there is ony one for windows: MPC-HC.
    There is only one color managed image viewer in linux: showphoto (part of the digikam suite).
    The whole gui is not color managed and there is not even a graphical color manager frontend in kde system-settings.
    ## VGA ##
    AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
    Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    882

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by plonoma View Post
    Many things now ask for a lot of time to develop the product from the idea/prototype that works.
    But maybe different terms for different kinds of patents would be appropriate.
    Well the process is now streamlined: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,6004077.story

    The new law would change the system by awarding patents to the first person to submit an application – not to the original inventor. Proponents hope this step will cut down on lawsuits and thus make patent approval more timely.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    You still don't get it... *sigh*

    Stop being a stupid label wearing and stamping consumer.

    The point is not more colors and more beatiful colors, but C-O-R-R-E-C-T colors.

    Likewise a 3D panel isn't cool, if it isn't 3D at all, but merely a brain fscking illusion. But hey; we got this effect we can sell! Moar bcuzz MOAR!!! BETTER FASTER, YESTERDAY!!!

    I bet you're going to buy an AMOLED screen soon, because it can paint pitch black, black, even though the correct color is suposed to be dark grey, just so your colors are more awzzzumz0rs 'n shit....

    I realy hope you were sarcastic...
    You don't get it. LCD's suck. Period. You can't replace a CRT tube with a cheap thin film of polarizing plastic and expect it to work out. LCD's are fine as long as they stay relatively small and relatively far away. They are fine for 27" and 32" and even 36" tvs but they suck as monitors. I can't see correctly 1/4 of my screen at any one time. Because of the polarizer. And the blah blah blah panel this panel that stuff doesn't mean anything. HDR64 is putting lipstick on a pig, HDR128 is putting more lipstick on a pig. Bloom and hdr just throw a bunch of light all over the place to make you think there's contrast. AMOLED screens won't happen they'll eventually become solyndra thin film solar is the roxxer money sucking failures. I used to have a 20 inch sony monitor and 7600gs. The sony cost 100 bucks a year. A grand amortized over 10 year service life. Since then I've blown 450 bucks for a shit bag samsung lcd that blew up after 3 years and realizing what a scam this is I bought a 150 buck piece of crap hannspree. And my 5550 is way way better than my 7600gs but the old rig would still destroy this in experience pleasure points. I don't use AA. I don't use AF. I don't use HDR. I don't use any of that crap. Because decent texture resolutions on great monitors looks fantastic. And monster high texture resolutions stretched 20 ways from sunday on ludicrous resolution monitors to keep you from seeing the dots ain't cutting it. I got better things to do than distort geometry and fix it. Fuck up colors and brightness and fix it, and all these other post processing fucking parade of shit the bed and spray perfume to mask it.

    High rez CRT's won't ever come back because nickel is too expensive and you can't make their electron beam masks without it. A sony 20" or a viewsonic 20 inch monitor would run you 5 frikkin grand today if it was popular and high volume with all the inflation. It's the same thing with printers. Laser works inkjet doesn't. But we can make inkjet cheap and run a ink scam on the side.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6hL6fkJ1_k

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Owatonna, Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    98

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    58

    Default

    What does it mean that patents are invalid? Someone has used the technology before it was patented or what?
    It could mean one of many things. But most often it means one of two things. 1) The patented solution existed before the patent application was filed (and was invented by some one else than the patentee) or 2) The technical solution patented did not fulfill the requirements for a patent, i.e a patent should have some technological merit, meaning that it has to be a real invention and not something that every one would come up with facing the same problem as the patent tries to solve.

    Now both #1 and #2 should have made the patent application rejected by the USPO when the patent was filed but unfortunately they (USPO) mostly rubber stamp all patent applications and hope that the legal system will sort it out later when companies litigate.

    There was no sarcasm there because patents do not favor the large multi-nationals.
    Well mostly they do because the what it works is that the big company has existed for far longer than you so they have filed for thousands of patents and since they also have more money they can afford to file for more patents (filing for patents is far from cheap). Imagine yourself trying to litigate against a company like IBM with your single patent when they file around 3000 patents a year. If your company makes any products there is a high chance that you violate alot of their patents. One can also look at how some small time inventors have fared against the big companies like Håkan Lans.

    It is sometimes worse. If you invalidate a patent, you incur some cost and your competitors don't but if you pay royalty, your competitors might have to patent royalty too since you established precedent and hence it might be a strategic move rather than purely a economical move to keep paying royalty for a patent you know might just be bogus. This is not unusual.
    That precedent is however not in the legal sense, i.e no judge or court will treat the patent as more valid just because there are licensees. It might however create the precedence that other companies believe that there is some merit to the patents since others have caved in.

    Why companies so seldom tries to invalidate patents is because there is no guarantee that a court will find the patent invalid even though you yourself might think that the patent is completely rubbish. So you might end up paying hugh legal costs and then a huge fine to the patent holder, and of course they will always make the license fee cheaper than what they sue for so that you will choose to license over litigation. And also if the two companies involved are rather big in the same industry they probably violate each others patents so instead of paying a fee they cross license their patents.

    There is no need for software patents, software is already protected by copyright and that is sufficient protection. Also the whole open source movement has clearly shown that innovation would not be stifled if we abolished software patents. And I say that as a professional software developer. I have never seen a single piece of software patent that I or others who I know hadn't solved similarly if faced with the exact same problem the patent is trying to solve.

    In fact I have written code as a 10 year old that in retrospective violates at least one software patent (IBM's RCU patent).

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,434

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by F.Ultra View Post
    In fact I have written code as a 10 year old that in retrospective violates at least one software patent (IBM's RCU patent).
    Ninjas have been dispatched to your last known address

Posting Permissions

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