red raw patent
Posted 04 January 2011 - 07:30 PM
The subject thread although started by JJ has been pulled at Red User and stifled on cml, so please no Red bashing just informed comment!
Posted 05 January 2011 - 03:00 PM
Posted 05 January 2011 - 04:53 PM
Posted 05 January 2011 - 10:34 PM
Posted 06 January 2011 - 06:25 AM
I was hoping to have a technical discussion on this elsewhere but it degenerated quickly into a bash fest.
Yes I've gathered there are some interesting technical aspects of the patent that, I summise, when taken in context with comments made by JJ, supposedly could have far reaching effects on the developments of other cameras.
I can't recall another occasion in the past 25 years where a patent about core elements of an electronic camera that is in production, is being said by the manufacturer to have such a wide reaching effect on the industry.
Having just paid the lawyers and had a technical innovation patent accepted here in Oz, I am loathed to try and disect the patent description because I know the devil is in a type of detail which is just beyond my iQ
But I'm all ears if anyone else wants to have a go.
Posted 06 January 2011 - 06:33 AM
Most of our correspondents here will of course be completely familiar with this, but for the sake of completeness: I think the reason that people get wound up about patents like this is that, in theory, obviousness is a defence in a patent litigation, but to get to that point is enormously expensive. As such this sort of patent doesn't do much more than have a fairly pronounced chilling effect on people who aren't rich. It doesn't actually stop a large organisation, with funding, from co-opting the idea. You wonder why they bother.