4 ms·
Your point is a fair one and what is an obvious answer depends greatly on what question is asked and also to a degree on timing. For me the key was recognising
by josephlord 14y ago
Your point is a fair one and what is an obvious answer depends greatly on what question is asked and also to a degree on timing. For me the key was recognising that:
1) The lossy encoding could be regarded as bugs.
2) the losses are known by the broadcaster and preserved (without further loss in a digital transmission system) to the viewers home.
Once the nature of the problem is described this way the idea does seem obvious (at least to me with a largely Computer Science rather than video encoding background) but that is not how issues are initially presented and redefining the problem is a great deal of the inventive part.
I would still defend this patent's inventiveness but I fully agree that obviousness is quite subjective
- scromar 14y agoAlso, a lot of times it is difficult to avoid hindsight bias. It may arguably seem obvious now, in 2013, but it is hard to say what would have been obvious in 2004. Nonobviousness is judged as of the filing date, a fact that many seem to forget.
- scoot 14y agoThat's a fair point, and hindsight bias can play a part in downplaying even recent innovations, which may seem obvious only after the fact. I don't think that applies in this case, but setting that aside, my main argument (that what counts as innovative, non-obvious etc. is subjective), I think still stands.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]