The Nokia Patents and VP8 - Prior Art Hunting Time ~pj Updated 2Xs |
|
Sunday, March 24 2013 @ 09:17 PM EDT
|
It's time to do a little prior art searching, don't you think? Can you help? Nokia just
disclosed a list of patents that it claims VP8, the video compression format used by the WebM Project, infringes, and the way they filled in the form, the list looks as long and scary as it could possibly look, and just as the IETF was trying to reach consensus on VP8.
But when you break the Nokia list down, country by country and then by patent, it's not so impressive after all. As it turns out, there are just a few patents repeated over and over. I think it's short enough that we can sensibly try to find prior art.
By the way, did you know that anyone, individual people I mean, can join the IETF mailing list and participate in the conversation? It's free, and while individuals may have affiliations and most do, it's not the kind of thing where companies or countries can dominate the way we watched happen in the OOXML affair, because unlike ISO or ITU, there are no national bodies to bribe influence, just individuals expressing their own opinions.
The IETF is a completely open standards body. If you'd like to and feel you understand the technology, you can join the mailing list and contribute to the decision-making process. It works by consensus. No need to bring your wallet. Don't read on unless you are free to read patents, as usual.
Jump To Comments
[Update 1,
Update 2,
Update 3]
[ Update 2 - A Tool for Searching:
A Groklaw member just sent me this this article in the Harvard Business Review, "Feeling Stumped? Innovation Software Can Help" and it is about a tool called Analogy Finder, a program that mines the U.S. Patent Database for analogous solutions. Here's the demo. Can some of you give it a whirl? Here's how you get going: You start with two words that describe what you are looking for. ... From here, the program will take the two words and basically find all the patents that are relevant to the original goal — however that goal is expressed. It will then allow you to narrow and order the results in various ways. The program will even take into account what areas you are an expert in so you don't waste time looking at solutions that you would already have thought of.
Let's try it out and if you find anything, either post it or email me. - End Update. - End Update.]
Google said at an IETF conference the other day that sublicenses will be royalty-free, thanks to the agreement it just signed with MPEG LA, when up stands a Nokia representative to say MPEG LA isn't the whole story and Nokia isn't a member. Nokia believes it has patents that are infringed by VP8, and it's not in the mood to license them. Here's the video of the event. And
here's another talk at the same IETF conference, a slide talk on VP8-MTI by a Google guy. Notice the rude interruptions, by the way, if you are one of those who think Google is the evil one. Interesting timing on Nokia's part, don't you think?
It's like a bomb went off in the room, or at least inside my head. Why didn't Nokia mention them earlier, one wonders? These are old patents. So they had to know earlier, I would think. I have my thoughts on that, but whatever the strategies behind the scenes may or may not be, prior art would be helpful to the situation, if there is any to be found. So why not look? Since Vp8 is a royalty-free alternative to MPEG LA's royalty-encumbered wares, do we need any more motivating reasons than that to want to help? I don't. I've arranged the list for you in a way that makes it a little easier to figure out what they are holding and to find prior art. I'll show you the whole list, but I thought it would be sensible to start with just the US. At least some of the foreign patents are basically on the same technology, if not all. And while Estonia matters to Nokia, no doubt, it doesn't impact the patent infringement legal world as much as an injunction in the US might. Not that I expect that to happen.
Nokia's US Patents and Patent Applications:
Here are the US patents that Nokia claims VP8 might infringe, and in the brackets I provide the title and a link, and as you know, on Google, there is on each a link that says "Find prior art", so let's do that, in addition to any personal knowledge you brainiacs might have:
Country: US: Filing Date: 09.06.1998, Filing Number: 09/094177, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 6504873 [Filtering based on activities inside the video blocks and at their boundary]
Country: US: Filing Date: 11.08.1999, Filing Number: 09/371641, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 6735249 [Apparatus, and associated method, for forming a compressed motion vector field utilizing predictive motion coding]
Country: US: Filing Date: 13.02.2004, Filing Number: 10/778449, Pub. Number: 20040165664, Grant Number: 7149251 [Apparatus, and associated method, for forming a compressed motion vector field utilizing predictive motion coding -
Continuation of application No. 09/09/371,641 filed on Aug. 11, 1999, now Pat. No. 6,735,249.]
Country: US: Filing Date: 12.12.2006, Filing Number: 11/609873, Pub. Number: 20070140342, Grant Number: NA [APPARATUS, AND ASSOCIATED METHOD, FOR FORMING A COMPRESSED MOTION VECTOR FIELD UTILIZING PREDICTIVE MOTION CODING - Continuation of application No. 10/778,449, filed on Feb. 13, 2004, now Pat. No. 7,149, 251, which is a continuation of application No. 09/371,641, filed on Aug. 11, 1999, now Pat. No. 6,735,249.]
Country: US: Filing Date:19.01.2001, Filing Number: 09/766193, Pub. Number: 20010017942, Grant Number: 6907142 [Method for encoding images, and an image coder]
Country: US: Filing Date: 06.06.2005, Filing Number:11/146196, Pub. Number: 20050254717, Grant Number: 7295713 [Method for encoding images, and an image coder - Division of application No. 09/766/193, filed on Jan. 19, 2001, now Pat. No. 6,907,142]
Country: US: Filing Date: 19.01.2001, Filing Number: 09/766035, Pub. Number: 20010017944, Grant Number: NA [Method and associated device for filtering digital video images. Note this one relates to "Country: FI: Filing Date:20.01.2000, Filing Number: 20000120, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 117533", according to the abstract.]
Country: US: Filing Date: 17.04.2007, Filing Number: 11/736454, Pub. Number: 20080095228, Grant Number: NA [SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING PICTURE OUTPUT INDICATIONS IN VIDEO CODING - "Related US Application Data: Provisional application No. 60/853,215, filed on Oct. 20, 2006."]
Country: US: Filing Date:08.05.2000, Filing Number: 09/566020, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 6711211 [Method for encoding and decoding video information, a motion compensated video encoder and a corresponding decoder]
Country: US: Filing Date: 03.02.2004, Filing Number: 10/770986, Pub. Number: 20040156437, Grant Number: 6954502 [Method for encoding and decoding video information, a motion compensated video encoder and a corresponding decoder]
Country: US: Filing Date: 07.09.2005, Filing Number: 11/219917, Pub. Number: 20060013317, Grant Number: NA [Method for encoding and decoding video information, a motion compensated video encoder and a corresponding decoder]
Country: US: Filing Date :09.10.2007, Filing Number: 11/869445, Pub. Number: 20080247657, Grant Number: 7567719 [Method for encoding images, and an image coder; Filing date: Oct 9, 2007,
Issue date: Jul 28, 2009.] I'm sure you noticed that there seem to be duplicates, with the same tech patented in another country. But even in the US-only context, you see the same title more than once. Those are continuations. What's that?
It's where the really elaborate machinations live, and the submarine patents. It's how you argue with the USPTO when it doesn't approve your patent application or if it does how you keep adding to what you already got approved from the USPTO, something you can do over and over to time indefinite.
Here's an article [PDF] by Mark Lemley and now-Judge Kimberly A. Moore that explains it, "Ending Abuse of Patent Continuations": Abstract:
One of the oddest things to an outsider about the United States patent system is that due to continuation practice it is impossible for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) ever to finally reject a patent application. Continuation applications have led to abuse of the patent prosecution process. They serve very little useful purpose, and what benefits they confer may be outweighed by their potential for mischief. In an effort to study the pervasiveness of continuation practice, we compiled an original dataset comprising 2,224,379 patents, every patent issued from 1976 through 2000. We found that while continuations are filed in 23% of all patent applications, patents based on continuation applications represent 52% of all litigated patents. Although continuations are used in a minority of all patents, it is the most important minority because it is the minority most likely to end up in litigation. We examine the efforts undertaken to control the problems associated with continuation patents (changing the patent term, publishing applications, prosecution laches) and find them insufficient. The world would probably be a better place if they were abolished. Recognizing, however, that the abuse of continuation practice is not as pervasive as some might think, we propose a number of means by which Congress and the courts could strengthen existing rules designed to limit their abuse while preserving the practice. At a minimum, the empirical data we present can provide litigants and judges with a baseline for assessing the reasonableness of delay caused by the filing of multiple continuations by the patentee in determining the applicability of equitable remedies such as prosecution laches. I asked Professor Michael Risch what it means when you see continuations. Does it mean the owner loves the patents or the opposite, and he said that it means they care about the patents very much. He pointed me to the Lemley article, and he says a lot of patent lawyers disagree with Lemley's article, the ideas in it:
Their counter argument is that continuations are necessary because patentees often don't know the full scope of what's a new invention when they file. So a good patent prosecutor gets a good, big, long disclosure filed, and then always keeps a version "alive" -- you accept and close on some claims, while you continue to fight with the PTO about new claims (that magically cover you competitors) or that are broader than your original claims.... If you add divisionals (where the description really covers two inventions) and continuations in part (where some new matter is added, but not all), it can get really ugly. As you get further out from the original, the chances of the claims not really covering what the inventor invented go up -- which might show in more written description problems, or simply anticipation (broader claims are more likely to have been invented before). Sigh. In other words, that's where you try to get more than you had in the beginning, maybe as you see what others are inventing so you can sue them. Blech. I so hate patent law. The Lemley-Moore article explains in a little more detail on page 2 (3 of the PDF]:Continuation practice has a number of pernicious consequences, which we detail in Part II. First, at a minimum, continuation practice introduces substantial delay and uncertainty into the lives of a patentee’s competitors,6 who can never know whether a patent application is pending. Second, the structure of the PTO suggests that continuations may well succeed in “wearing down” the examiner, so that the applicant obtains a broad patent not because he deserves one but because the examiner has neither incentive nor will to hold out any longer. Third, continuation practice can be – and has been – used strategically to gain advantages over competitors by waiting to see what product the competitor will make and then drafting patent claims specifically designed to cover that product. Finally, some patentees have used continuation practice to delay the issuance of their patent precisely in order to surprise a mature industry, a process known as “submarine patenting.”
_______
6 Original applications take on average 1.96 years from their filing to issuance. Continuations, in contrast, take on average 4.16 years. See infra notes __-__ and accompanying text. That's a 2003 article, so maybe the times are different now. Because what I see are applications in the US list a lot older than that. Maybe that means Nokia scraped the bottom of its barrel, to come up with this list, including applications that have been withering on the vine a while?
[Update 1: Here's a chart showing how long a random set of patents that issued in 2012 were pendent -- as you can see, there are wait times, and as we learned continuations can prolong the process if they date back to the original filing date, but I notice not many are as old as, for example, Nokia's application, the one second from last on the list, which is 8 years old now.]
Anyway, if gut instinct means anything, you would imagine that continuations mean the possibility of invalidity has gone up and up. The article, for example, describes how applicants work to wear an examiner down: "There is no way an examiner can ever cause a determined applicant to go away, though allowing the applicant’s patent claims will increase the chance that the case will finally be disposed of."
[Update 3: Mark Webbink gave me a little more explanation:
1. A continuation is a subset of an earlier filed application. Often
what happens is that the examiner finds there to be more than one
patentable invention in the application, so the applicant separates them
out. Or the applicant sees the opportunity to further refine one of the
claims. In any case, a continuation cannot assert claims broader than
those included in the original application. He adds that there surely are patents that have been pending at least as long as Nokia's, but there's more:
What often happens is that these applications get rejected,
the applicant then revises the claims and asks for reconsideration. The
USPTO has been in no hurry to process these reconsideration requests.
As a general rule, if the prosecution of the patent has taken this long
(9 years) then it is fair to venture that there are some significant
issues with the subject matter claimed.
Aha! - End Update.]
I've arranged the list of Nokia's patents, the complete list, but arranged by country instead of just jumbled up in a big ball. Of course, there will be more overlaps between these patents and those in other countries, one assumes, than what I noticed in compiling the US list. And if you live in Germany, Japan, Spain, etc. and want to go ahead and are free to do so, by all means check them out and provide us with urls, connections, and info.
Nokia's List, By Country:
Australia:
Country: AU: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 30275/01, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 778990
Country: AU: Filing Date: 29.08.2007, Filing Number: 2007311526, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 2007311526
Austria:
Country: AT: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 01902442.1, Pub. Number: 1186177,
Grant Number: 1186177
Brazil:
Country: BR: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: PI0107706.6, Pub. Number: 0107706, Grant Number: NA
Country:BR Filing Date: 29.08.2007, Filing Number: PI0718205.8, Pub. Number:NA,
Grant Number: NA
Country: BR: Filing Date: 08.05.2001, Filing Number: PI0110627.9, Pub. Number: 0110627, Grant Number: NA
Canada:
Country: CA: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 2374523, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 2374523
Country: CA: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 2397090, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 2397090
Country: CA: Filing Date: 15.01.2007, Filing Number: 2572566, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 2572566
Country: CA: Filing Date: 17.12.2007, Filing Number: 2614571, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: NA
Country:CA: Filing Date: 08.05.2001, Filing Number: 2408364, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 2408364
China:
Country: CN: Filing Date:10.08.2000, Filing Number: 00814037.5, Pub. Number: 1378750,
Grant Number: ZL00814037.5
Country: CN: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 01800565.9, Pub. Number: 1365575, Grant Number: ZL01800565.9
Country: CN: Filing Date: 06.10.2005, Filing Number: 200510113767.6, Pub. Number: 1756362, Grant Number: NA
Country: CN: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 01806682.8, Pub. Number: 1418436, Grant Number: ZL01806682.8
Country: CN: Filing Date: 11.03.2005, Filing Number: 200510056330.3, Pub. Number: 1658677, Grant Number: 200510056330.3
Country: CN: Filing Date: 08.05.2001, Filing Number: 01812464.X, Pub. Number: 1457606, Grant Number: 01812464.X
Country: CN: Filing Date: 29.08.2007, Filing number: 200780044601.0, Pub. Number: 101548548, Grant Number: 200780044601.0
EP:
Country: EP: Filing Date: 08.05.2001, Filing Number: 01931769.2, Pub. Number: 1282982,
Grant Number: NA
Country: EP: Filing Date: 29.08.2007, Filing Number 07826205.2, Pub. Number: 2080375,
Grant Number: NA
Estonia:
Country: EE: Filing Date: 08.05.2001, Filing Number: P200200627, Pub.number: P200200627, Grant Number: 5487
Finland:
Country: FI: Filing Date: 10.08.2000, Filing Number: 00957359.3, Pub. Number: 1206881,
Grant Number: 1206881
Country: FI: Filing Date:20.01.2000, Filing Number: 20000120, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 117533
Country: FI: Filing Date:21.01.2000, Filing Number: 20000131, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 116819
France:
Country: FR: Filing Date: 22.05.1998, Filing Number: 98660050.0, Pub. Number: 0884911,
Grant Number: 0884911
Country: FR: Filing Date:10.08.2000, Filing Number: 00957359.3, Pub. Number: 1206881,
Grant Number: 1206881
Country: FR: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 01902442.1, Pub. Number: 1186177,
Grant Number: 1186177
Germany:Country: DE: Filing Date: 22.05.1998, Filing Number: 98660050.0, Pub. Number:0884911,
Grant Number: 69825220
Country: DE: Filing Date: 10.08.2000, Filing Number: 00957359.3, Pub. Number: 1206881,
Grant Number: 60015566.8
Country: DE: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 01902442.1, Pub. Number: 1186177,
Grant Number: 60145194.5
Country: DE: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 01902443.9, Pub. Number: 1249132,
Grant Number: 60144513.9
Great Britain:
Country: GB: Filing Date:22.05.1998, Filing Number: 98660050.0, Pub. Number: 0884911,
Grant Number: 0884911
Country: GB:Filing Date: 10.08.2000, Filing Number: 00957359.3, Pub. Number: 1206881,
Grant Number: 1206881
Country: GB: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 01902442.1, Pub. Number: 1186177, Grant Number: 1186177
Country: GB: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 01902443.9, Pub.Number: 1249132,
Grant Number: 1249132
Hong Kong:
Country: HK: Filing Date: 10.01.2003, Filing Number: 03100263.7, Pub. Number:1048411,
Grant number: 1048411
Country: HK: Filing Date: 17.08.2006, Filing Number: 06109148.6, Pub. Number: 1089030,
Grant Number: NA
Country: HK: Filing Date: 10.09.2003, Filing Number: 03106477.6, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 1054288
Country: HK: Filing Date: 04.01.2006, Filing Number: 06100170.6, Pub. Number: 1080653, Grant Number: 1080653
Hungary:
Country: HU: Filing Date: 08.05.2001, Filing Number: P0302617, Pub. Number: P0302617, Grant Number: NA
India:
Country: IN: Filing Date: 29.08.2007, Filing Number: 2656/DELNP/2009, Pub. Number:NA, Grant Number: NA
Ireland:
Country: IE: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 01902442.1, Pub. Number: 1186177,
Grant Number: 1186177
Italy:
Country: IT: Filing Date: 10.08.2000, Filing Number: 00957359.3, Pub. Number: 1206881,
Grant number:1206881
Country: IT: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 01902442.1, Pub. Number: 1186177,
Grant Number: 1186177
Japan:
Country: JP: Filing Date: 09.04.2008, Filing Number: 2008-101068, Pub. Number:2008-178149, Grant number: NA
Country: JP: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 2001-553307, Pub. Number: 2003-520531, Grant number: NA
Country: JP: Filing Date: 20.09.2007, Filing Number: 2007-244456, Pub. Number: 2008-054335, Grant Number: NA
Country: JP: Filing Date: 20.04.2012, Filing Number:2012-096255, Pub. Number: 2012-170122, Grant Number: NA
Country: JP: Filing Date: 08.05.2001, Filing Number: 2001-583055, Pub. Number: 2003-533142, Grant Number: 4369090
Country: JP: Filing Date: 29.08.2007, Filing Number: 2009-532920, Pub. Number: 2010-507310, Grant Number: 4903877
Korea:
Country: KR: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 2002-7009307, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 714355
Country: KR: Filing Date: 08.05.2001, Filing Number: 2002-7014937, Pub. Number: 2003-11325, Grant Number: 772576
Mexico:
Country: MX: Filing Date: 08.05.2001, Filing Number: PA/A/2002/010964, Pub. Number: NA, Grant Number: 229275
Country: MX :Filing Date: 02.06.2005, Filing Number: PA/A/05/005901, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 259781
Country: MX: Filing Date: 29.08.2007, Filing Number: MX/a/2009/004123 , Pub. Number: MX/a/2009/004123, Grant Number: NA
Netherlands:
Country: NL: Filing Date:22.05.1998, Filing Number: 98660050.0, Pub. Number: 0884911,
Grant Number: 0884911
Country: NL: Filing Date: 10.08.2000, Filing Number: 00957359.3, Pub. Number: 1206881,
Grant Number:1206881
Country: NL: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 01902442.1, Pub. Number: 1186177,
Grant Number: 1186177
Country: NL: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 01902443.9, Pub. Number: 1249132,
Grant Number: 1249132
Philippines:
Country: PH: Filing Date: 29.08.2007, Filing Number: 1-2009-500724, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: NA
Russia:
Country: RU: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 2002100648, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 2295203
Country: RU: Filing Date: 10.11.2006, Filing Number: 2006139951, Pub.Number: 2006139951, Grant Number: 2358410
Country: RU: Filing Date: 29.08.2007, Filing Number: 2009117688, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: NA
Singapore:
Country: SG: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 200107086.1, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 84926
Country: SG: Filing Date: 17.09.2004, Filing Number: 200405663.6, Pub. Number: 128476,
Grant Number: 128476
Country: SG: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 200204136.6, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 90389
Country:SG: Filing Date: 08.05.2001, Filing Number: 200206648.8, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 92888
Country: SG: Filing Date:29.08.2007, Filing Number: 200902620-4, Pub. Number: NA, Grant Number: 151785
South Africa:
Country: ZA: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 2002/5506, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 2002/5506
Country: ZA: Filing Date: 08.05.2001, Filing Number: 2002/8767, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 2002/8767
Spain:
Country: ES: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number:01902442.1, Pub. Number: 1186177,
Grant Number: 1186177
Sweden:
Country: SE: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 01902442.1, Pub. Number: 1186177,
Grant Number: 1186177
Turkey:
Country: TR: Filing Date: 22.01.2001, Filing Number: 01902442.1, Pub. Number: 1186177,
Grant Number: 1186177
The US:
Country: US: Filing Date: 09.06.1998, Filing Number: 09/094177, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 6504873
Country: US: Filing Date: 11.08.1999, Filing Number: 09/371641, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 6735249
Country: US: Filing Date: 13.02.2004, Filing Number: 10/778449, Pub. Number: 20040165664, Grant Number: 7149251
Country: US: Filing Date: 12.12.2006, Filing Number: 11/609873, Pub. Number: 20070140342, Grant Number: NA
Country: US: Filing Date: 19.01.2001, Filing Number: 09/766035, Pub. Number: 20010017944, Grant Number: NA
Country: US: Filing Date:19.01.2001, Filing Number: 09/766193, Pub. Number: 20010017942, Grant Number: 6907142
Country: US: Filing Date: 06.06.2005, Filing Number:11/146196, Pub. Number: 20050254717, Grant Number: 7295713
Country: US: Filing Date :09.10.2007, Filing Number: 11/869445, Pub. Number: 20080247657, Grant Number: 7567719
Country: US: Filing Date:08.05.2000, Filing Number: 09/566020, Pub. Number: NA,
Grant Number: 6711211
Country: US: Filing Date: 03.02.2004, Filing Number: 10/770986, Pub. Number: 20040156437, Grant Number: 6954502
Country: US: Filing Date: 07.09.2005, Filing Number: 11/219917, Pub. Number: 20060013317, Grant Number: NA
Country: US: Filing Date: 17.04.2007, Filing Number: 11/736454, Pub. Number: 20080095228, Grant Number: NA
Vietnam:
Country: VN: Filing Date: 29.08.2007, Filing Number: 1-2009-00996, Pub. Number: 22209, Grant number: NA
And just to be certain we didn't miss anything, here's the list as Nokia provided it to the IETF, and yes, they provided it looking just like this, perhaps to look as terrifying as possible or maybe this is just how it's done:V. Disclosure of Patent Information (i.e., patents or patent applications required to be disclosed by Section 6 of RFC 3979)
A. For granted patents or published pending patent applications, please provide the following information:
Patent, Serial, Publication, Registration, or Application/File number(s): Country:DE:Filing date:22.05.1998, Filing number:98660050.0, Pub.number:0884911, Grant number:69825220 Country:FR:Filing date:22.05.1998, Filing number:98660050.0, Pub.number:0884911, Grant number:0884911 Country:GB:Filing date:22.05.1998, Filing number:98660050.0, Pub.number:0884911, Grant number:0884911 Country:NL:Filing date:22.05.1998, Filing number:98660050.0, Pub.number:0884911, Grant number:0884911 Country:US:Filing date:09.06.1998, Filing number:09/094177, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:6504873 Country:CN:Filing date:10.08.2000, Filing number:00814037.5, Pub.number:1378750, Grant number:ZL00814037.5 Country:DE:Filing date:10.08.2000, Filing number:00957359.3, Pub.number:1206881, Grant number:60015566.8 Country:FI:Filing date:10.08.2000, Filing number:00957359.3, Pub.number:1206881, Grant number:1206881 Country:FR:Filing date:10.08.2000, Filing number:00957359.3, Pub.number:1206881, Grant number:1206881 Country:GB:Filing date:10.08.2000, Filing number:00957359.3, Pub.number:1206881, Grant number:1206881 Country:IT:Filing date:10.08.2000, Filing number:00957359.3, Pub.number:1206881, Grant number:1206881 Country:NL:Filing date:10.08.2000, Filing number:00957359.3, Pub.number:1206881, Grant number:1206881 Country:US:Filing date:11.08.1999, Filing number:09/371641, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:6735249 Country:US:Filing date:13.02.2004, Filing number:10/778449, Pub.number:20040165664, Grant number:7149251 Country:US:Filing date:12.12.2006, Filing number:11/609873, Pub.number:20070140342, Grant number:NA Country:JP:Filing date:09.04.2008, Filing number:2008-101068, Pub.number:2008-178149, Grant number:NA Country:AU:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:30275/01, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:778990 Country:CA:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:2374523, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:2374523 Country:CN:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:01800565.9, Pub.number:1365575, Grant number:ZL01800565.9 Country:CN:Filing date:06.10.2005, Filing number:200510113767.6, Pub.number:1756362, Grant number:NA Country:FI:Filing date:20.01.2000, Filing number:20000120, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:117533 Country:HK:Filing date:10.01.2003, Filing number:03100263.7, Pub.number:1048411, Grant number:1048411 Country:HK:Filing date:17.08.2006, Filing number:06109148.6, Pub.number:1089030, Grant number:NA Country:RU:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:2002100648, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:2295203 Country:RU:Filing date:10.11.2006, Filing number:2006139951, Pub.number:2006139951, Grant number:2358410 Country:SG:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:200107086.1, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:84926 Country:SG:Filing date:17.09.2004, Filing number:200405663.6, Pub.number:128476, Grant number:128476 Country:US:Filing date:19.01.2001, Filing number:09/766035, Pub.number:20010017944, Grant number:NA Country:AT:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:01902442.1, Pub.number:1186177, Grant number:1186177 Country:FR:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:01902442.1, Pub.number:1186177, Grant number:1186177 Country:DE:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:01902442.1, Pub.number:1186177, Grant number:60145194.5 Country:IE:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:01902442.1, Pub.number:1186177, Grant number:1186177 Country:IT:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:01902442.1, Pub.number:1186177, Grant number:1186177 Country:NL:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:01902442.1, Pub.number:1186177, Grant number:1186177 Country:ES:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:01902442.1, Pub.number:1186177, Grant number:1186177 Country:SE:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:01902442.1, Pub.number:1186177, Grant number:1186177 Country:TR:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:01902442.1, Pub.number:1186177, Grant number:1186177 Country:GB:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:01902442.1, Pub.number:1186177, Grant number:1186177 Country:BR:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:PI0107706.6, Pub.number:0107706, Grant number:NA Country:CA:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:2397090, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:2397090 Country:CA:Filing date:15.01.2007, Filing number:2572566, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:2572566 Country:CN:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:01806682.8, Pub.number:1418436, Grant number:ZL01806682.8 Country:CN:Filing date:11.03.2005, Filing number:200510056330.3, Pub.number:1658677, Grant number:200510056330.3 Country:FI:Filing date:21.01.2000, Filing number:20000131, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:116819 Country:HK:Filing date:10.09.2003, Filing number:03106477.6, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:1054288 Country:HK:Filing date:04.01.2006, Filing number:06100170.6, Pub.number:1080653, Grant number:1080653 Country:JP:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:2001-553307, Pub.number:2003-520531, Grant number:NA Country:KR:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:2002-7009307, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:714355 Country:SG:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:200204136.6, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:90389 Country:US:Filing date:19.01.2001, Filing number:09/766193, Pub.number:20010017942, Grant number:6907142 Country:US:Filing date:06.06.2005, Filing number:11/146196, Pub.number:20050254717, Grant number:7295713 Country:ZA:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:2002/5506, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:2002/5506 Country:JP:Filing date:20.09.2007, Filing number:2007-244456, Pub.number:2008-054335, Grant number:NA Country:CA:Filing date:17.12.2007, Filing number:2614571, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:NA Country:US:Filing date:09.10.2007, Filing number:11/869445, Pub.number:20080247657, Grant number:7567719 Country:DE:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:01902443.9, Pub.number:1249132, Grant number:60144513.9 Country:NL:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:01902443.9, Pub.number:1249132, Grant number:1249132 Country:GB:Filing date:22.01.2001, Filing number:01902443.9, Pub.number:1249132, Grant number:1249132 Country:JP:Filing date:20.04.2012, Filing number:2012-096255, Pub.number:2012-170122, Grant number:NA Country:BR:Filing date:08.05.2001, Filing number:PI0110627.9, Pub.number:0110627, Grant number:NA Country:CA:Filing date:08.05.2001, Filing number:2408364, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:2408364 Country:CN:Filing date:08.05.2001, Filing number:01812464.X, Pub.number:1457606, Grant number:01812464.X Country:EE:Filing date:08.05.2001, Filing number:P200200627, Pub.number:P200200627, Grant number:5487 Country:EP:Filing date:08.05.2001, Filing number:01931769.2, Pub.number:1282982, Grant number:NA Country:HU:Filing date:08.05.2001, Filing number:P0302617, Pub.number:P0302617, Grant number:NA Country:JP:Filing date:08.05.2001, Filing number:2001-583055, Pub.number:2003-533142, Grant number:4369090 Country:KR:Filing date:08.05.2001, Filing number:2002-7014937, Pub.number:2003-11325, Grant number:772576 Country:MX:Filing date:08.05.2001, Filing number:PA/A/2002/010964, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:229275 Country:MX:Filing date:02.06.2005, Filing number:PA/A/05/005901, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:259781 Country:SG:Filing date:08.05.2001, Filing number:200206648.8, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:92888 Country:US:Filing date:08.05.2000, Filing number:09/566020, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:6711211 Country:US:Filing date:03.02.2004, Filing number:10/770986, Pub.number:20040156437, Grant number:6954502 Country:US:Filing date:07.09.2005, Filing number:11/219917, Pub.number:20060013317, Grant number:NA Country:ZA:Filing date:08.05.2001, Filing number:2002/8767, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:2002/8767 Country:US:Filing date:17.04.2007, Filing number:11/736454, Pub.number:20080095228, Grant number:NA Country:AU:Filing date:29.08.2007, Filing number:2007311526, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:2007311526 Country:BR:Filing date:29.08.2007, Filing number:PI0718205.8, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:NA Country:CN:Filing date:29.08.2007, Filing number:200780044601.0, Pub.number:101548548, Grant number:200780044601.0 Country:EP:Filing date:29.08.2007, Filing number:07826205.2, Pub.number:2080375, Grant number:NA Country:IN:Filing date:29.08.2007, Filing number:2656/DELNP/2009, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:NA Country:JP:Filing date:29.08.2007, Filing number:2009-532920, Pub.number:2010-507310, Grant number:4903877 Country:MX:Filing date:29.08.2007, Filing number:MX/a/2009/004123 , Pub.number:MX/a/2009/004123 , Grant number:NA Country:PH:Filing date:29.08.2007, Filing number:1-2009-500724, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:NA Country:RU:Filing date:29.08.2007, Filing number:2009117688, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:NA Country:SG:Filing date:29.08.2007, Filing number:200902620-4, Pub.number:NA, Grant number:151785 Country:VN:Filing date:29.08.2007, Filing number:1-2009-00996, Pub.number:22209, Grant number:NA
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 24 2013 @ 10:18 PM EDT |
Interesting timing on Nokia's part, don't you think? It's like a
bomb went off in the room, or at least inside my
head. Why didn't Nokia mention
them earlier, one wonders? These are old patents. So they had to know earlier, I
would think.
It might have had something to do with Google's
agreement with
MPEG-LA, of which Nokia is not a member, and thus would not have been a
party to any consultation, nor
had much inside information on the deal. Also
Nokia seems confident in its pursuit of HTC thru
the German courts:
Florian Mueller writes in his patent blog
(http://www.fosspatents.com/2013/03/patent-clouds-remain-over-
vp8-google.html)
that he has attended a court hearing in Mannheim, Germany, where, according to
his blog, "Counsel for Nokia
indeed based the infringement allegation in no
small part on what the specifications of the Google-controlled VP8 standard say,
which is an unmistakable sign that Nokia considers EP1206881 to be inevitably
infringed by all implementations of VP8."
Now, I understand that Mr.
Mueller is not particularly highly regarded by a whole bunch of people in the
open source
community. I myself find a number of other statements in this blog
post, however carefully worded, somewhat questionable.
OTOH, I consider it
very unlikely that he made up all those reported facts. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Quote? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, March 24 2013 @ 11:29 PM EDT
- Quote? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 08:19 AM EDT
- Why Now? - Authored by: globularity on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 09:00 AM EDT
- Why Now? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 03:06 PM EDT
- Why Now? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 03:24 PM EDT
- a firstpost troll? - Authored by: designerfx on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 11:13 AM EDT
- a firstpost troll? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 11:54 AM EDT
- no - Authored by: designerfx on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 12:57 PM EDT
- no - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 01:18 PM EDT
- Florian quote - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 02:57 PM EDT
- Good News - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 12:24 PM EDT
|
Authored by: artp on Sunday, March 24 2013 @ 10:48 PM EDT |
"Erorr" -> "Error" in TItle Block if possible, please.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: artp on Sunday, March 24 2013 @ 10:50 PM EDT |
If there is prior art, stay away from the topic. All
discussions must be completely original, therefore totally
inhuman.
Thank you.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Funny Title - Authored by: kawabago on Sunday, March 24 2013 @ 11:30 PM EDT
- Funny Title - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 09:05 AM EDT
- Funny Title - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 10:03 AM EDT
- Tin Foil Hat - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 01:04 AM EDT
- Internet Will Not Be Another TV (poster) - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 01:33 AM EDT
- Washington Post Defends Not Running Article On Iraq Media Failure - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 06:23 AM EDT
- Hotmail copyright - Authored by: squib on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 02:21 PM EDT
- Hotmail copyright - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 03:45 PM EDT
- Hotmail copyright - Authored by: Wol on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 04:53 PM EDT
- Are you sure? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 05:13 PM EDT
- Are you sure? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 05:33 PM EDT
- Cool Science - Prince Rupert’s Drop: The Curious Properties of a Molten Glass Blob - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 09:03 PM EDT
- Supreme Court weighs deals to delay generic drugs - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 10:53 PM EDT
- Aaron Swartz Prosecutor Carmen Ortiz Admonished In 2004 For Aggressive Tactic - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 02:29 AM EDT
- Ad industry has attacked Mozilla over its decision to block third-party cookies - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:02 AM EDT
- OSnews take on the VP8 patents: "We have been here before" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:23 AM EDT
- Pervasive sequence patents cover the entire human genome - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 10:53 AM EDT
- MS is forcing Skype on you. Skype leaks your location. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 12:01 PM EDT
- 30 Months For Potential Murder? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 03:12 PM EDT
- Laptop Ads - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 04:27 PM EDT
- Laptop Ads - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:03 PM EDT
- Laptop Ads - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 05:15 AM EDT
- Laptop Ads - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 10:51 PM EDT
- Laptop Ads - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 01:38 AM EDT
- Laptop Ads - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 04:09 PM EDT
- Realtime Report Keyword in lawsuits filed - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 06:17 PM EDT
- Google Glass May Not Be Welcome for Drivers in West Virginia - Authored by: JamesK on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 09:55 AM EDT
|
Authored by: artp on Sunday, March 24 2013 @ 10:52 PM EDT |
URL, please.
Where, oh where did my sidebar scroll? Where, oh where could
it be?
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Another Reason Google Reader Died: Increased Concern About Privacy and Compliance - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 07:19 AM EDT
- 'Monsanto Protection Act' Sneaks through Senate - Authored by: hardmath on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 11:01 AM EDT
- "Rather Than Fix The CFAA, House Judiciary Committee Planning To Make It Worse... Way Worse" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 03:21 PM EDT
- WebRTC Codec patent? We've been here before. - Authored by: symbolset on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 12:28 AM EDT
- Ad industry threatens Firefox users - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 01:01 AM EDT
- Chromebook and the low cost of being accessible - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 04:51 AM EDT
- ogooglebart (Eng. ungoogleable) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 12:41 PM EDT
- Bingable? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 01:03 PM EDT
- unsearchable - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 04:22 PM EDT
- unsearchable - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 05:37 PM EDT
- ogooglebart (Eng. ungoogleable) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 01:28 AM EDT
- Lawsuit claiming MMS services are like Napster finally fails - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 01:02 PM EDT
- Beijing Takes Another Bite at Apple - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 05:25 PM EDT
- Windows 'Blue' shows desktop's days are numbered - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 05:34 PM EDT
- CNet: Google-Nokia face off in video codec dispute - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 29 2013 @ 02:21 PM EDT
|
Authored by: artp on Sunday, March 24 2013 @ 10:55 PM EDT |
See the link above for "Comes v. MS" for complete details.
More work to be done and so little time to do it.
---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 2848 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 05:46 PM EDT
- 2848 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 06:34 PM EDT
- 2851 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 11:30 PM EDT
|
Authored by: artp on Sunday, March 24 2013 @ 11:24 PM EDT |
The difficulty lies in determining exactly what it was
that you designed it
to do. :-)
As I read the article, a couple of points jump out at
me.
First, it appears that there is no need for a continuation
on a patent
from an engineering standpoint. You either
invented something or you didn't. If
you didn't, then you
don't get a patent. You either understand what you
invented
or you don't. If you don't, then you can't write the patent
application. What is the difficulty here?
Risch
states:
Their counter argument is that continuations are
necessary because patentees often don't know the full scope
of what's a new
invention when they file.
I'm sure that there are many legal
application of the
continuation. Engineers, after all, create many tools to do
their work. We should expect no less of other professions.
We can expect that
they will use appropriate levels of
ethics, though, and continuations seem to
have bled over
that boundary.
Second, PJ addresses the impossibility of
ever getting rid
of a patent application for good.
The article,
for example, describes how
applicants work to wear an examiner down: "There is
no way
an examiner can ever cause a determined applicant to go
away, though
allowing the applicant’s patent claims will
increase the chance that the case
will finally be disposed
of."
When we were raising our kids,
we subscribed to the
strategies of John Rosemond. Rosemond was big on figuring
out what "natural and logical consequences" would be for
undesirable behavior.
IOW, how do I make the child care more
about their behavior than I do?
I
would suggest that one way to let patentees bear the
burden of their bad
choices would be to put their
application at the bottom of the pile if they
file a
continuation. That creates space at the top for other
applicants who
have not yet had a shot at approval. It
doesn't reject the application
completely, it just rewards
the continuation applicant with the natural and
logical
consequences of their strategy. Their decision - their
delay.
As
it stands now, any consequences for continuations fall on
everybody BUT the
applicant. The applicant gets to go to the
well until the bottom drops out of
the bucket, but is still
able to haul water in it.
My proposal just
allocates some of the delay to the
applicant, who has created the situation by
their own
desires. They can take that into account when they decide
whether
to apply for a continuation or not. Their choice.
If Rosemond's theories are
correct, the applicants will find
a way around this, just like children do. So
we will have to
find a different way of making them care about their
misbehavior more than we do. And do not doubt for a second
that it is
misbehavior. They are using more than their fair
share of resources, and are
not playing nicely with others.
This is antisocial behavior, and must not be
tolerated, or
civilization will come crumbling down around our ears. And
before you know it, someone will be patenting rounded
corners, rectangles and
software. ;-)
--- Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: macliam on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 12:33 AM EDT |
If you examine the continuations, you should find that the specification is
the same for all of them. For example, I was looking at US6735249, US7149251
and US20070140342. And yes, if you look at the specifications, there might be
an introductory sentence or so to say that you have a continuation. In these
patents section of the the '251 patent entitled CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED
APPLICATION begins:
This Application is a continuation of
U.S. Patent Application… now U.S. Pat. No.
6,735,249.
Then, in theory at least, the two patent
specifications should continue to match up, word for word—until you reach
the list of claims. Then the patent documents will diverge. The diagrams
should also match up. Basically, the continuation just piles extra claims that
read on the embodiment disclosed in the first patent (in this case the '249
patent).
Basically, to people unfamiliar with patent law, the two
inventions are the same invention. But, to patent lawyers and judges,
each claim is a separate ‘invention’. You should find independent
claims followed by lists of dependent claims that progressively narrow the scope
of the claim. But otherwise, the claims are treated as separate inventions. A
method or apparatus infringes one of these patents, provided that Nokia can
prove that at least one patent claim reads on the allegedly infringing
device, i.e., that the device matches the text of the claim as the claim
language would be interpreted by a person having ordinary skill in the relevant
art. To invalidate the claim, you need to prove that the specific claim
reads on a device that was prior art back in 1999.
It is no good
just finding an example of ‘prior art’ that resembles the
embodiment disclosed in the '249 specification. The degree of
resemblence, or lack of resemblence, between the alleged infringing method or
apparatus and the prior art method or apparatus and the embodiment
disclosed in the '249 specification is totally irrelevant for purposes of
determining infringement or proving invalidity. All that matters is whether or
not the infringing technology or the prior art technology comes within the
scope of the claim, when that claim is given its broadest interpretation
consistent with the specification.
Thus continuations are a way of
piling on claim after claim to catch more allegedly infringing technologies in
the net, or to provide fallbacks if claims previously made are invalidated. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- US 6,735,249 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 02:30 AM EDT
- Identify 'improvement' in '249 over Chalidabhongse, see how claimed, in VP8? -n/t - Authored by: macliam on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 04:23 AM EDT
- Identify 'improvement' in '249 over Chalidabhongse, see how claimed, in VP8? -n/t - Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 10:07 PM EDT
- Identify 'improvement' in '249 over Chalidabhongse, see how claimed, in VP8? -n/t - Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 10:22 PM EDT
- Identify 'improvement' in '249 over Chalidabhongse, see how claimed, in VP8? -n/t - Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 10:24 PM EDT
- Identify 'improvement' in '249 over Chalidabhongse, see how claimed, in VP8? -n/t - Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 10:27 PM EDT
- Identify 'improvement' in '249 over Chalidabhongse, see how claimed, in VP8? -n/t - Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 10:36 PM EDT
- Identify 'improvement' in '249 over Chalidabhongse, see how claimed, in VP8? -n/t - Authored by: macliam on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 04:26 AM EDT
- Argument - Authored by: Ian Al on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 03:30 AM EDT
- Continuations - Authored by: PJ on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 08:19 AM EDT
- You 'invent' without knowing it. Experience the Aha! 8 years later. Submit Continuation.-n/t - Authored by: macliam on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 10:53 AM EDT
- Discovering invention later - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 03:26 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 05:55 AM EDT |
I'm so disappointed with Nokia :/
I can't say anything but micro$oft touch of death... and I feel no more
sentiment for nokia dying after their stupid move to windows 8.
The sad thing is that one can be sued for patents that he never knew about. So
in this case how can the patent be non-obvious? What is the rational behind
paying damages?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 06:47 AM EDT |
If Nokia sues anybody who uses the wemb then they do not
have possibility to use webm at all in any devices. There
are some standards that will have webm as must and if Im not
wrong websocket is one of those. So if WP will implement
websocket then Nokia can not sell WP anymore.
Basicly only thing Google needs to do is force webm on
youtube for all mobile devices if its not the case already.
Problem solved.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- VP8 licence - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 07:42 AM EDT
- VP8 licence - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 07:51 AM EDT
- VP8 licence - Authored by: webster on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 08:25 AM EDT
- Bit of a worry - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 03:56 PM EDT
- Bit of a worry - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 01:25 PM EDT
- VP8 licence - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 06:36 AM EDT
- VP8 licence - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:00 AM EDT
- VP8 licence - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 03:40 PM EDT
- VP8 licence - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 12:32 AM EDT
|
Authored by: jesse on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 07:30 AM EDT |
Appears to be what is commonly known as "dithering".
In this case, specifically to hide the edges of blocks of the image.
Dithering goes way back to WW2, done by motorized vibrators to allow more
precise bombing runs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dither
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Dithering - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 08:55 AM EDT
- Dither - Authored by: JamesK on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 12:07 PM EDT
- US 6504873 - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 07:14 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 08:35 AM EDT |
Before starting in on the "search" could someone please help
clarify two or
three points for me:
Nokia (a Microsoft partner) claims that their
'infringed'
patents are necessary for the new 'Standard' and will
not
license these under any terms, SEP FRAND etc.. This
is to
kill
the 'new' standard - not to make money from it -
maintaining
H.264 as their favoured "open and collaborative"
method?
Does this mean that these same patents have been
'committed'
to Mpeg LA under the SEP rule as FRAND - since Nokia (even
as an MS partner and counter to MS interests?) did not
contribute to
the patent pool - as the problems with such
members have already been
overcome.
Surely this means that they already successfully license
these as a part of H.264, SEP covered by FRAND (as
Motorola)?
If
not, then are they claiming that it is only the new VP8
Standard that
infringes or would H.264 infringe if they
chose to assert them?
How
to view their relationship with other H.264
Patents -
as potential
prior art against Nokia or vice versa
underpinning, or building on H.264 -
bozo tweaks or what?
Do the Nokia Patents have to be stand on their own?
Perhaps
in a sense as 'fundamental' to H.264 or can they be an
'intermediate' stage, themselves relying and building
on (and
citing?) donated H.264 patents to give them
their
"essential" aspect? Do individual "claims" have to be
seen as
part of, within a standard or as "standalone
claims"?
As another
complication, can the Nokia (non-MPEG LA)/MS
'partnership' alter any of
these questions? Maybe not
directly in this case but in how these patents
had
previously
been asserted against, or licensed to members of MPEG LA
and on what basis - fair and non-discriminatory or
favourable
to MS? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 10:00 AM EDT |
After ding a quick search on the 2 Australian patents I have some additional
information
30275/01 -> http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspat/applicationDet
ails.do?applicationNo=2001030275
Application number :
2001030275
Title : A method and associated device for filtering digital
video images
Applicant(s) : Nokia Corporation
Inventor(s) : Aksu, Emre;
Kalevo, Ossi; Karczewicz, Marta
Filing date : 2001-01-22
Application
status : GRANTED
---------------------------------
2007311526 ->
http://pericles.ipaustralia.gov.au/ols/auspt/applicationDetai
ls.do?applicationNo=2007311526
Application number : 2007311526
Title
: System and method for providing picture output indications in video
coding
Applicant(s) : Nokia Corporation
Inventor(s) : Wang, Ye-Kui;
Hannuksela, Miska
Filing date : 2007-08-29
Application status :
GRANTED
--- IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2013 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 12:18 PM EDT |
Nokia is based in Finland. From Helsinki, the capital of
Finland, to Talinn, the capital of Estonia, is a two-hour
ferry ride. As I understand it, Finnish and Estonian (and
Hungarian-Magyar), form a language group unlike anything else
(can anybody elaborate in a reply?), so maybe some linguistic
subtleties can be buried in their patents. I'm also
interested that countries like Turkey and Vietnam are there.
Perhaps it has to do with the nationality of the employee
that produced the "idea".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 05:43 PM EDT |
I took a look a this and, to me, it reads like poorly written,
poorly formatted gobbledygook with a few mathematical
equations thrown in. From what little I can make out of it,
it looks like another dithering scheme.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 25 2013 @ 08:42 PM EDT |
Shouldn't we insist that an inventor wait until the innovation process is
complete before filling.
Take the example of two inventors both working on a similar device.
Traditionally who ever is smarter finishes first and gets the patent. What
companies are doing now is patenting before they finish the work to cut off
others that may be working on similar devices.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: macliam on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 05:47 AM EDT |
Say you have a video of a ball rotating and flying through the air. You have
a reference frame, and you want to encode a current frame (say) one second
later. To construct the later frame, you divide up into 16x16 pixel 'segments'.
For each segment, you find a portion of the previous image that bests matches
the current image for that segment, and specify the coefficients a, b, c, d, e,
f for a motion sending (x,y) to (a + cx + ey, b + dx + fy) that maps the current
segment to the portion of the reference frame that most resembles it (which will
probably be an image of the moving rotating ball at the earlier time whereever
it was in the frame). Then you transmit the six motion coefficients (probably
with other information that allows for improving the image). So far, this seems
to be in the prior art. What makes this invention novel is that, instead of
using the motion coefficients determined by the current frame, it may make sense
to use those of the frame immediately to the left, or immediately above,
suitably transformed. If you can do so, then you need to transmit less
information. Therefore you determine which of the various methods (using
coefficients calculating coefficients for the current frame, or reusing them
from a frame to the left or above, assuming left to right, top to bottom
encoding) gives the better compression, and then transmit data accordingly. So
the following questions. Does the proposed standard do things this way? Is
there any prior art teaching using using the affine motion model with
transformed coeefficients from neighboring frames? Is there something else in
one of Nokia's other claims teaching something different that might be
infringed? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 11:47 AM EDT |
htt
p://pdf.aminer.org/000/389/918/constra
ints_for_the_estimatio
n_of_displacement_vector_fields_from_image.pdf
<
p>The article is, as far as I can tell, from 1983. It talks
abouth oriented
smoothness of vector field and minimization
function.
ABSTRACT
Smoothness constraints have been used to
facilitate the
estimation of displacement vector fields.
Differing from HORN
and SCHUNCK 81 who employ a
general smoothness requirement, this contribution
reports an analysis of an "oriented smoothness"
requirement: a change in the
displacement vector
field is only constrained in the direction perpendicular to
the characteristic gray value variation
based on which the displacement vector
is estimated. An
iterative solution for the resulting
system of nonlinear
partial differential equations is
developed. It is shown how this system of
equations relates to the one derived by HORN and
SCHUNCK
81.
/Peter [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 04:17 PM EDT |
In order to find prior art I guess it would help to understand the claims of the
patents. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:35 PM EDT |
1999 'state of the art' academic survey of compression
techniques:
application_of_the_minimum_description _length_prin
ciple_to_object_ori
ented.pdf
This paper from Roger J. Clarke
Department of Computing and
Electrical Engineering,
Heriot-Watt University,Edinburgh
might help
some of us to understand the state of the art
about
the
time that
Nokia were filing the first patents. In
particular,
there is an
extensive list of references which might
provide
links or leads to
prior art - if you can gain access? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:37 PM EDT |
Ideally we want prior art for every single claim in every single patent. That
is huge, however. The fear then is that we concentrate in some areas and not
others. As a first measure we should make sure that there is some prior art
against each "independent" claim. I've put together a list for each
patent and will post them separately so that it's easy to record where there is
something missing. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- 6504873 - independent claims 1, 10, 13 & 14 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:39 PM EDT
- 6735249 - Independent claims 1, 25 & 41 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:41 PM EDT
- 20040165664 / 7149251 - Independent claims 1 & 13 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:43 PM EDT
- 6,735,249 / 20070140342 - Independent claims 1 & 13 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:45 PM EDT
- 20010017942 / 6907142 - Independent claims 1, 34, 46, 53 & 54 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:47 PM EDT
- 20050254717 / 7295713 - Independent claims 1, 5 & 7 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:50 PM EDT
- 20010017944 - Independent claims 1, 19, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 26 2013 @ 07:52 PM EDT
- 20080095228 - Prov. app. No. 60/853,215 - Independent claims, 1, 15, 27, 41, 53 and 54 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 01:33 AM EDT
- 6711211 / 09/566020 - Independent claims - 1, 25 and 41 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 01:40 AM EDT
- 6954502 - Independent claims - 1, 3 and 34 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 01:45 AM EDT
- 20060013317 - Independent claim 1 - only claim included - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 01:48 AM EDT
- 20080247657 / 7567719 - Independent claims - 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 13, 15 and 19 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 01:54 AM EDT
- Motion Model vs motion vector in Nokia's motion-predictive-encoding patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 02:49 AM EDT
- Listing Independent Claims per Patent - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 03:59 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 01:20 AM EDT |
There is a basic problem with claiming that the VP8 spec
infringes '249. '249 is an encoding-efficiency patent. VP8
is a decoding specification.
VP8 follows a very common practice in video codec standards
specifications: it defines a "reference decoder" and a
bitstream format. The specification tells you precisely what
images a compliant decoder will render when it receives any
specific valid bitstream. There are many different
bitstreams that result in the same (or nearly the same)
video playback. You, as a person building or writing an
encoder, may exhibit great cleverness in finding the
smallest bitstream which plays the video you're sending with
acceptable quality. Bully for you! The standard does not
*require* you to be clever about encoding, nor to be clever
in any particular way.
Thus encoding-efficiency techniques (like '249) are hardly
ever "standards-essential" for codecs, because the standard
doesn't require you to encode efficiently.
All three of '249's independent claims (1, 25, and 41)
specifically claim a method for choosing between two
alternative motion vector encodings. Even if the choice they
describe is possible in VP8 (I'm not convinced it is), there
is no need to make the choice in the manner they describe in
order to write an encoder.
In a different context, it might be considered responsible
citizenship for Nokia to let encoder-designers know that
some of the clever ideas they might come up with for
efficient encoding have been patented. However here, where
the implication seems to be "these patents are essential and
we won't license them", it is BS in the finest FUD
tradition.
IMHO we can cross '249 off the list of patents blocking VP8
adoption.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 06:20 AM EDT |
.
Isn't this call Equitable Estoppel?
Because these are old patents
(mostly), which Nokia
knew about and just when the IETF was to reach a
consensus then up jump Nokia deciding to release these
patents in a
discriminated way to block VP8 adoption.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 27 2013 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
Hi,
Patents from several countries with the publication and Grant number
above seem to be translations of a European patent to several languages/national
patent systems.
Link to the Swedish patent summary page
Link to the Swedish patent document (pdf)
Link to the European
patent summary page
Link to the European patent document (pdf)
Stéphane[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 28 2013 @ 01:54 AM EDT |
Update: Here's a chart showing how long a random set
of patents that issued
in 2012.....
Was there suppose to be a link showing a chart?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|