|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, February 08 2013 @ 08:58 PM EST |
Great that he can recognise an unbounded claim when he sees one,
but we can't blame the judge for not looking up words he doesn't
understand, e.g. codec, because the patent doesn't use that word.
The patent explicitly describes encoders and decoders as distinct
operators, thus concealing the truth we techies know that one is
acheived as the mathematical inverse of the other. Alsup would
understand that, given the right literature, and getting it explained
properly in the courtroom.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 09 2013 @ 02:40 PM EST |
When encoder/decoders are lossy, having a decoder specification does not make it
possible to make an encoder, particularly one which provides pleasing results.
To provide pleasing results requires understanding how humans perceive the
result, and which aspects of the original can be discarded in the process. With
the specifications, given an encoded stream, there is only one resulting decoded
stream. But, given an original, one can generate many encoded streams. One could
envision an encoder which would generate a static tone regardless of the input.
It would meet the standard, but would not be valuable.
The ideal encoder will produce results with minimal perceived differences to the
original when experienced at normal speed. Some people will be able to detect a
bigger difference than others, and the encoder needs to produce a result
pleasing to most people who will experience the decoded results.
This difference in encoders yields the value of the encoder. Providing
instructions on how one builds an encoder which acts this way does have value to
society, but the patent generally only tells what has been done, and not why. In
the case of an encoder, the why of the matter is much more valuable to people
trying to improve encoding than the actual algorithm. If we must have patents on
algorithms, it should be required to explain why a particular algorithm was
chosen, and why it was better than alternatives.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|