Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The S3TC Patent Might Be Invalid

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
    More colors are useless because not a single consimer panel supports correct colors (like the Adobe standard). The cheapest true color panel is sold by Dell for 800 euro's and is LCD...

    Now software patents; they are not useless because hardware must be involved. We live in an age where embedded systems are everywhere and large part of the magic happens in software. However being able to patent obvious shit like floating point on a piece of PC hardware is far from an invention that gets us anywhere near a better product offering that we wouldn't have got without the patent, anyway...
    That's why I said we need 32 bit panels. =)

    Comment


    • #32
      No you don't get it. I'd take picture perfect 16bit over consumer grade "OMG full HD 2 Ultra 128 billion color 3D!!!!111 one one eleven".

      The point is, is that black is actually displayed as a dancing dark purple disco and white is more close to ultra bright yellow.

      You can have 269 billion shades of red, but that doesn't make my dark black shadow, look like a dark black shadow...
      Last edited by V!NCENT; 09-16-2011, 11:20 AM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
        No you don't get it. I'd take picture perfect 16bit over consumer grade "OMG full HD 2 Ultra 128 billion color 3D!!!!111 one one eleven".

        The point is, is that black is actually displayed as a dancing dark purple disco and white is more close to ultra bright yellow.

        You can have 269 billion shades of red, but that doesn't make my dark black shadow, look like a dark black shadow...
        Well I get it, I'm saying "We need kick-ass screens", and you're saying "No, screens suck, so you can't have that". I'm not saying somebody should peddle some crap as fantastic, just because they have some PR numbers, I'm saying "We should have awesome panels that can show better black, better white, light like the sun and black like complete darkness that sucks the light from the room, and infinite resolution in between". And you're just boring. I think you're the one that doesn't get it.

        Comment


        • #34
          You still don't get it... *sigh*

          Stop being a stupid label wearing and stamping consumer.

          The point is not more colors and more beatiful colors, but C-O-R-R-E-C-T colors.

          Likewise a 3D panel isn't cool, if it isn't 3D at all, but merely a brain fscking illusion. But hey; we got this effect we can sell! Moar bcuzz MOAR!!! BETTER FASTER, YESTERDAY!!!

          I bet you're going to buy an AMOLED screen soon, because it can paint pitch black, black, even though the correct color is suposed to be dark grey, just so your colors are more awzzzumz0rs 'n shit....

          I realy hope you were sarcastic...
          Last edited by V!NCENT; 09-16-2011, 12:04 PM.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
            I bet you're going to buy an AMOLED screen soon, because it can paint pitch black, black, even though the correct color is suposed to be dark grey
            Yes, I will. I have a 3000$ professional ultra wide gamut monitor and I can assure you AMOLED has the most correct colors in the world in comparison
            The whole thing about sRGB is simply stupid and outdated, everything should be color managed in the 2011: photos, video and the whole gui. If you don't own a spectrophotometer it should default to canned profiles.
            But in the real world there is no color managed video player in linux (there were patches for mplayer but they never reached mainline) and there is ony one for windows: MPC-HC.
            There is only one color managed image viewer in linux: showphoto (part of the digikam suite).
            The whole gui is not color managed and there is not even a graphical color manager frontend in kde system-settings.
            ## VGA ##
            AMD: X1950XTX, HD3870, HD5870
            Intel: GMA45, HD3000 (Core i5 2500K)

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by plonoma View Post
              Many things now ask for a lot of time to develop the product from the idea/prototype that works.
              But maybe different terms for different kinds of patents would be appropriate.
              Well the process is now streamlined: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,6004077.story

              The new law would change the system by awarding patents to the first person to submit an application – not to the original inventor. Proponents hope this step will cut down on lawsuits and thus make patent approval more timely.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                You still don't get it... *sigh*

                Stop being a stupid label wearing and stamping consumer.

                The point is not more colors and more beatiful colors, but C-O-R-R-E-C-T colors.

                Likewise a 3D panel isn't cool, if it isn't 3D at all, but merely a brain fscking illusion. But hey; we got this effect we can sell! Moar bcuzz MOAR!!! BETTER FASTER, YESTERDAY!!!

                I bet you're going to buy an AMOLED screen soon, because it can paint pitch black, black, even though the correct color is suposed to be dark grey, just so your colors are more awzzzumz0rs 'n shit....

                I realy hope you were sarcastic...
                You don't get it. LCD's suck. Period. You can't replace a CRT tube with a cheap thin film of polarizing plastic and expect it to work out. LCD's are fine as long as they stay relatively small and relatively far away. They are fine for 27" and 32" and even 36" tvs but they suck as monitors. I can't see correctly 1/4 of my screen at any one time. Because of the polarizer. And the blah blah blah panel this panel that stuff doesn't mean anything. HDR64 is putting lipstick on a pig, HDR128 is putting more lipstick on a pig. Bloom and hdr just throw a bunch of light all over the place to make you think there's contrast. AMOLED screens won't happen they'll eventually become solyndra thin film solar is the roxxer money sucking failures. I used to have a 20 inch sony monitor and 7600gs. The sony cost 100 bucks a year. A grand amortized over 10 year service life. Since then I've blown 450 bucks for a shit bag samsung lcd that blew up after 3 years and realizing what a scam this is I bought a 150 buck piece of crap hannspree. And my 5550 is way way better than my 7600gs but the old rig would still destroy this in experience pleasure points. I don't use AA. I don't use AF. I don't use HDR. I don't use any of that crap. Because decent texture resolutions on great monitors looks fantastic. And monster high texture resolutions stretched 20 ways from sunday on ludicrous resolution monitors to keep you from seeing the dots ain't cutting it. I got better things to do than distort geometry and fix it. Fuck up colors and brightness and fix it, and all these other post processing fucking parade of shit the bed and spray perfume to mask it.

                High rez CRT's won't ever come back because nickel is too expensive and you can't make their electron beam masks without it. A sony 20" or a viewsonic 20 inch monitor would run you 5 frikkin grand today if it was popular and high volume with all the inflation. It's the same thing with printers. Laser works inkjet doesn't. But we can make inkjet cheap and run a ink scam on the side.

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6hL6fkJ1_k

                Comment


                • #38
                  Since part of this topic has delved into the details of the patent system istelf:

                  http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/21/ten-...about-patents/

                  http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/09/star...-are-a-cancer/

                  http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1856610

                  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...4V7J_blog.html

                  Food for thought.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    What does it mean that patents are invalid? Someone has used the technology before it was patented or what?
                    It could mean one of many things. But most often it means one of two things. 1) The patented solution existed before the patent application was filed (and was invented by some one else than the patentee) or 2) The technical solution patented did not fulfill the requirements for a patent, i.e a patent should have some technological merit, meaning that it has to be a real invention and not something that every one would come up with facing the same problem as the patent tries to solve.

                    Now both #1 and #2 should have made the patent application rejected by the USPO when the patent was filed but unfortunately they (USPO) mostly rubber stamp all patent applications and hope that the legal system will sort it out later when companies litigate.

                    There was no sarcasm there because patents do not favor the large multi-nationals.
                    Well mostly they do because the what it works is that the big company has existed for far longer than you so they have filed for thousands of patents and since they also have more money they can afford to file for more patents (filing for patents is far from cheap). Imagine yourself trying to litigate against a company like IBM with your single patent when they file around 3000 patents a year. If your company makes any products there is a high chance that you violate alot of their patents. One can also look at how some small time inventors have fared against the big companies like Håkan Lans.

                    It is sometimes worse. If you invalidate a patent, you incur some cost and your competitors don't but if you pay royalty, your competitors might have to patent royalty too since you established precedent and hence it might be a strategic move rather than purely a economical move to keep paying royalty for a patent you know might just be bogus. This is not unusual.
                    That precedent is however not in the legal sense, i.e no judge or court will treat the patent as more valid just because there are licensees. It might however create the precedence that other companies believe that there is some merit to the patents since others have caved in.

                    Why companies so seldom tries to invalidate patents is because there is no guarantee that a court will find the patent invalid even though you yourself might think that the patent is completely rubbish. So you might end up paying hugh legal costs and then a huge fine to the patent holder, and of course they will always make the license fee cheaper than what they sue for so that you will choose to license over litigation. And also if the two companies involved are rather big in the same industry they probably violate each others patents so instead of paying a fee they cross license their patents.

                    There is no need for software patents, software is already protected by copyright and that is sufficient protection. Also the whole open source movement has clearly shown that innovation would not be stifled if we abolished software patents. And I say that as a professional software developer. I have never seen a single piece of software patent that I or others who I know hadn't solved similarly if faced with the exact same problem the patent is trying to solve.

                    In fact I have written code as a 10 year old that in retrospective violates at least one software patent (IBM's RCU patent).

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
                      In fact I have written code as a 10 year old that in retrospective violates at least one software patent (IBM's RCU patent).
                      Ninjas have been dispatched to your last known address

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by V!NCENT View Post
                        Likewise a 3D panel isn't cool, if it isn't 3D at all, but merely a brain fscking illusion.
                        Depth perception in humans is a "brain fscking illusion" in the first place.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          With the exception that normal depth perception does not cause headaches :P

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            <insert stupid quote about LCD not being color complient>
                            <answer that Dell has one that actually does deliver good color, but you never saw one in action>

                            <insert something about missing color management>
                            <answer something about Windows having color management for everything on your screen>

                            Originally posted by Ex-Cyber View Post
                            Depth perception in humans is a "brain fscking illusion" in the first place.
                            Except that your head doesn't explode from percieving depth in a surface that has no depth and therefore results in massive headaches over a period of time.

                            When I play a game like Need For Speed Hot Persuit 2010, I can see all kinds of fancy effects that don't fool my brain into believing that anything is correct, simply because all effects are like a painting versus a photo. Nothing fools me.

                            And then they say ray tracing is inferior... Well at least that which is painted on the screen is actually believable...

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              How do you think your brain knows there's "real" depth? It doesn't go there and touch it. It's because each one of your eyes sends different images to it. That's exactly what 3D displays try to do; send different images to your left and right eye.

                              The technique needs to be perfected (the imperfections cause the headaches,) but the principle of it is same as with naturally-perceived depth. It doesn't matter in the least whether there's "real" depth or not. Reality is what your brain perceives. If that perception can be cloned perfectly, then for your brain, that's reality.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                                How do you think your brain knows there's "real" depth? It doesn't go there and touch it. It's because each one of your eyes sends different images to it. That's exactly what 3D displays try to do; send different images to your left and right eye.

                                The technique needs to be perfected (the imperfections cause the headaches,) but the principle of it is same as with naturally-perceived depth. It doesn't matter in the least whether there's "real" depth or not. Reality is what your brain perceives. If that perception can be cloned perfectly, then for your brain, that's reality.
                                Quite right. There's no difference at all, other than the fact that it's very difficult to fake this stuff well enough to fool your brain.

                                Your eyes are constantly getting different images depending on the exact angle they are viewing something at. Even if you moved the monitor into a pair of goggles over your eyes, they expect to see something slightly different depending on whether you are focusing slightly to the left, right, or staring straight ahead. Until technology is at the point where it can track your eye movements exactly, it will be difficult to perfect the technology.

                                Perhaps eventually we'll all have corneal implants that can overlay video directly onto our optic nerves. I imagine that would simplify the problems a lot.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X