If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
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...
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.
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The whole thing about sRGB is simply stupid and outdated, everything should be color managed in the 2011: photos, video and the whole gui.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.
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.
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.
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).