|
|
|
| Authored by: eric76 on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 08:13 PM EDT |
It sounds like he decided to ignore anything regarding prior art and just accept
the patents as being valid.
I'm curious if that could considered to be juror misconduct.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 04:25 AM EDT |
The bit that blows me away? I've looked at the foreman's
patent, and, well... here's my analysis.
Claim 1 consists of three components, as divided in the
original patent... provisionally filed on March 6, 2001, and
officially filed as of February 12, 2002. It described "a
video system comprising:"
a) A "system controller module, consisting of one tuner"
that processes input signals into video signals, with a
processor module that edits the tuner's video signals, a
decoder that "decode[s] the one or more video signals from
the tuner to provide at least one decoded video file", and a
memory unit that stores the resulting file. This module must
process the input signals into video files, and provide an
interface to the user allowing them to edit sections of the
video file. It must NOT contain a "separate program
information receiver."
Comments: Two key notes. First off, the patent does not
define a "program information receiver"... but ignoring that
for the moment, we seem to be specifying a system containing
a tuner capable of editing and saving the resulting video.
Secondly, the claim requires a processor module that can
edit the video signals directly, before they are sent
through the "decoder" to produce a "decoded video file"...
it strikes me that any real-time user-controllable filter on
the tuner card suffices, and there's no requirement that
this filter's output must be able to be saved to storage.
b) "an internal fixed storage device" [e.g. a hard drive]
that stores the video files produced by the "system
controller module".
c) "an internal removable media storage device" that can
store video files, either directly from the "system
controller module", or copied from the "internal fixed
storage device".
This claim appears to cover, among other things, any HTPC
with video editing software... and certainly covers any HTPC
that implements real-time video filters of any sort. In
particular, it seems like it would cover any computer with a
TV tuner card, an installation of SnapStream's Personal
Video Station (released before February 2, 2001), a user-
controllable piece of software capable of editing video
files (which existed in 2000), and a user-configurable piece
of software capable of applying SOME real-time filter to the
tuner card's output... which, given that this was a trivial
and obvious system in 2001, would seem to provide prior art
invalidating this Claim.
Going a bit further: Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 12 are
also directly covered by the above assembly. You admittedly
don't seem to get such systems with automatic ad-skipping
(asserted under Claims 8 and 9) announced until a month
after this provisional filing date - but I'd be surprised if
there weren't sources for it. Claims 10 and 11 cover
"optimized head movement" for reading and editing video
files... but I'm pretty sure hard drives & operating systems
of the time did this already.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 11:54 PM EDT |
There are some people whose brains seem to run on a completely different kind of
logic so that I simply cannot understand their mental processes at all. The Jury
foreman seems to be one of these people. How unfortunate that this kind of
individual should end up in such a pivotal and powerful position. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 06:14 PM EDT |
More comments by him, from his own mouth, on Bloomberg TV
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/jury-foreman-discusses-apple-
samsung-trial-verdict-ikNjTofgRRecKM4cFXZoZA.html
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
