 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Not in the US. A patent covers using the invention as well as building it.
> If I buy a patented device someone else built, I'm not allowed to
> use it without a license. Most people who build the device buy a license
> that allows the buyers to use it without restriction. However, MPEG-LA
> doesn't sell that sort of license, or it's prohibitively expensive.
That's just silly. How in the name of God are you supposed to know
whether a device you bought from somebody else requires a license, and
if so who you need the licsense from?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
> > Only if the end user writes the software to decode the video, is the end
> > user doing any patent infringment.
> Not in the US. A patent covers using the invention as well as building it.
I'm not a patent lawyer, but AFAIK here patents only cover selling or
distributing patented devices. You are still free to take a patent (all
patents are public), build the device yourself and use it freely. Only
if you start selling the devices you are building (and probably even if
you start distributing them for free) will the patent protection kick in.
This makes a lot more sense to me, in more than one way. Most importantly,
a patent forbidding someone from building the patented device himself and
using it in private is more or less unenforceable. Laws which are
unenforceable are pretty useless.
With physical devices it might in some cases make *some* sense to forbid
their private building and usage if the user somehow gets significant
benefits from it, espcially if the device is something you use in public
(let's say for example, something that you put on a visible part of your
car). However, given that you can (or could until very recently) patent
methods instead of devices in the US, it starts making less and less sense.
If you patent training a cat with a laser pointer, how exactly are you going
to enforce it? Are you going to put survaillance in everybody's home to see
that they are not breaking your patent?
> > So, if the video is sent of to Sealand as any other video format, and it
> > is encoded there and sent back as an h.264 format, it should be fine.
> I disagree with that. Decoding infringes the patents, at least in the USA.
Luckily that's not the case here. (Well, yet. Companies are lobbying the
EU really hard to make this happen. Let's hope the EU makes the wise decision
for once.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Sabrina Kilian wrote:
>>> Only if the end user writes the software to decode the video, is the end
>>> user doing any patent infringment.
>
>> Not in the US. A patent covers using the invention as well as building it.
>
> I'm not a patent lawyer, but AFAIK here patents only cover selling or
> distributing patented devices.
GIYF. http://www.bitlaw.com/patent/rights.html
> You are still free to take a patent (all
> patents are public), build the device yourself and use it freely. Only
> if you start selling the devices you are building (and probably even if
> you start distributing them for free) will the patent protection kick in.
Not in the USA.
> This makes a lot more sense to me, in more than one way.
Me too. Sadly, that's not how it is in the USA. IANAL.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 May 2010 17:21:59 +0200, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> I'm not a patent lawyer, but AFAIK here patents only cover selling or
> distributing patented devices. You are still free to take a patent (all
> patents are public), build the device yourself and use it freely. Only
> if you start selling the devices you are building (and probably even if
> you start distributing them for free) will the patent protection kick in.
Just for clarification:
http://www.prh.fi/en/patentit/hakusuomi.html
http://www.prh.fi/en/patentit/lainsaadantoa/patenttilaki.html
Most importantly:
"The exclusive right shall not apply to:
(1) use which is not commercial"
Swedish patent law is very similar.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Fredrik Eriksson wrote:
> Most importantly:
> "The exclusive right shall not apply to:
> (1) use which is not commercial"
Wikipedia:
"""
The rights conveyed by a patent vary country-by-country. For example, in
the
United States, a patent covers research, except "purely philosophical"
inquiry. A U.S. patent is infringed by any "making" of the invention, eve
n a
making that goes toward development of a new invention—which may
itself
become subject of a patent.
"""
So here, you don't even get to try it out yourself to see if you can make
it
better. Actually, I thought that patents explicitly did *not* cover use
for
research purposes, so either Wikipedia is wrong, the law changed since I
learned it, or I'm misremembering. It would seem terribly counter-product
ive
to let patents exclude research, given that the whole patent system is
intended to promote research.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 08 May 2010 20:59:00 +0200, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Actually, I thought that patents explicitly did *not* cover use for
> research purposes, so either Wikipedia is wrong, the law changed since I
> learned it, or I'm misremembering. It would seem terribly
> counter-productive to let patents exclude research, given that the whole
> patent system is intended to promote research.
I tried looking it up, but it is just too much effort. The actual
legislative text (35 USC 271) says very little; most of the rules appear
to have been set by courts. Finding and digging through all the relevant
court rulings is a bit more effort than I am willing to put in for the
sake of curiosity.
I did find this little analysis on the experimental use exemption:
http://www.nystar.state.ny.us/nl/nlassets/pdf/stlc1.pdf
A couple of somewhat relevant quotes from that article:
> the experimental use defense is strictly limited to activities
> performed "for amusement, to satisfy idle curiosity, or for
> strictly philosophical inquiry."
> The CAFC stated that any use which has the "slightest commercial
> implication" or is "in keeping with the legitimate business of the
> alleged infringer" cannot qualify for the experimental use defense.
> The sweeping holding in Madey v. Duke would appear to preclude
> experimental use of patented subject matter by all non-profit
> research organizations, including federal laboratories, research
> foundations and research hospitals.
--
FE
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/5/2010 5:24 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Second, if you're talking about the ISO setting rather than the
> exposure, that's about how much you pre-bias the electrons in the
> sensor. Basically, you load up each pixel of the sensor with some
> electrons, and if light kicks out an electron, you add one to the
> intensity of the light there. Adding more electrons makes it easier to
> get kicked out.
I thought ISO essentially amplifier gain. e.g. A CCD (or CMOS) cell
accululates a certain number of photons, which builds a potential, a
fixed time later, after the exposure has been taken, some circuitry
reads the potentials, send it through an amplifier (whose gain is set by
the ISO setting in the camera's software) then to a DAC, and encoded in
a file, rather than pre-charge the CCD....
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
> I thought ISO essentially amplifier gain.
I come to the conclusion that my understanding of the topic was likely
incorrect. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Ada - the programming language trying to avoid
you literally shooting yourself in the foot.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/6/2010 12:33 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
> That's not strictly true - I know a couple guys who do wedding photos and
> do their captures in raw format. They just bring several large memory
> cards with them so they can capture lots of images.
>
> Though I suppose it depends on what they're photographing at the wedding;
> if it's the lucky couple, then raw is probably more commonly used than,
> say, photos of guests at the reception.
Like I said, some do, some don't. I would imagine some of the more
high-end photographers that spend a lot of time on each image will do
lots of post work, but that really depends. If they're using external
lighting, and have everything set exactly right, they may be using jpg
for the sheer convenience of not having to go through the processing
portion. But, I can definitely see a wedding photographer using raw,
especially for the posed pictures.
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 5/6/2010 3:10 AM, Invisible wrote:
> It was the most expensive lense I could find in the catalogue. ;-) I'm
> strange like that; when looking at a price list, I often go to the final
> page, just to see how silly the price is.
That's not the most expensive Canon lens... That one is a 1200mm f/5.6,
which is around USD 80,000 :D
--
~Mike
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
