3 ms·

>public index of assholes like these. It's hard for me to upset with these specific individuals, because I don't know their plans or agenda. In reality, if it

>public index of assholes like these. It's hard for me to upset with these specific individuals, because I don't know their plans or agenda. In reality, if it wasn't them, at this point, it would be someone else at some other point. From that perspective, companies are almost forced to do this to protect themselves. What would happen if they were beat to the patent? All you can do is hope the the patent holder is the most benign option. The real idiots are the regulators. This system is broken.

lotsofmangos 12y ago
What would happen if they were beat to the patent? In this case there is no "Beat to the patent." to consider. This is basic photography. Knocking out a background nicely with backlighting and an infinity curve so that the back is brighter than your foreground highlights, so you can then tune the camera to get the back all white and just chop out your subject easily is a technique that predates digital photography. You may note that the advance they describe is that this technique negates the need for computer processing. There is a very good reason for that, and that is because when this technique was developed, computer processing was done on hand cranked adding machines.
- hnnewguy 12y ago
  >In this case there is no "Beat to the patent." The fact that they were issued a patent says otherwise.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    No it doesn't. It just means that money has been spent needlessly on something that should it ever actually end up in court will just be a colossal waste of time and money for everyone concerned. Merely being issued a patent doesn't prove if the patent is worth a damn, there was a patent issued for a method of swinging on a swing http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6368227 http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6368227
    - hnnewguy 12y ago
      >No it doesn't. Yes, it does. They got a patent for the process, meaning had they not, someone else might have. Hence them "beating" others to the patent. I'm not arguing about the validity of the patent, or really, the system in general. I'm saying, it's better to have the patent yourself then be sued by a troll holding a patent for a ridiculous process you're using, resulting in a "colossal waste of time and money for everyone concerned." Unfortunately, this is the state of the world; some players filing over-arching, stupid patents, others filing defensive patents for leverage and protection. Until they sue someone for this, it's impossible to know the intent. Regardless, it corrupts the system.

lotsofmangos 12y ago

What would happen if they were beat to the patent? In this case there is no "Beat to the patent." to consider. This is basic photography. Knocking out a background nicely with backlighting and an infinity curve so that the back is brighter than your foreground highlights, so you can then tune the camera to get the back all white and just chop out your subject easily is a technique that predates digital photography. You may note that the advance they describe is that this technique negates the need for computer processing. There is a very good reason for that, and that is because when this technique was developed, computer processing was done on hand cranked adding machines.

hnnewguy 12y ago
>In this case there is no "Beat to the patent." The fact that they were issued a patent says otherwise.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  No it doesn't. It just means that money has been spent needlessly on something that should it ever actually end up in court will just be a colossal waste of time and money for everyone concerned. Merely being issued a patent doesn't prove if the patent is worth a damn, there was a patent issued for a method of swinging on a swing http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6368227 http://www.google.co.uk/patents/US6368227
  - hnnewguy 12y ago
    >No it doesn't. Yes, it does. They got a patent for the process, meaning had they not, someone else might have. Hence them "beating" others to the patent. I'm not arguing about the validity of the patent, or really, the system in general. I'm saying, it's better to have the patent yourself then be sued by a troll holding a patent for a ridiculous process you're using, resulting in a "colossal waste of time and money for everyone concerned." Unfortunately, this is the state of the world; some players filing over-arching, stupid patents, others filing defensive patents for leverage and protection. Until they sue someone for this, it's impossible to know the intent. Regardless, it corrupts the system.