Alpha Blending, patented by Apple
-
yep. so are stencils. but doing something on/with a computer counts as a new invention. the same way "Photo Mosaics" are nothing new (i remember doing similar things in grade school), but are still apparently patent worthy. -c
POKE 808,234
-
yep. so are stencils. but doing something on/with a computer counts as a new invention. the same way "Photo Mosaics" are nothing new (i remember doing similar things in grade school), but are still apparently patent worthy. -c
POKE 808,234
As far as I understand the matter, the legal argument is that the even the combination of two well known or common ideas is considered patentable. Patents like that reactivate my primal instincts of shouting and grunting and bashing head seriously. Our society and technology is so much focused on "virtual goods" (like having an idea), and more and more decreases the value of "handcrafted", creation of *things*, "having a product", something you can take into your hands, feel, use, throw away. It doesn't count anymore that you create the finest marvelous photo mosaics, but (in the best case) you just had the idea of doing this. Or, in the worst case, you can pay the lawyer to do the paperwork. Patents have done good, and do good (e.g. protect the company I work for from being quickly put out of business by big fish), so I) guess it's just again the lawyers against the wall. X|
-
That's not alpha blending, it's just transparency using a 1 bit mask. How can they patent it when the instructions have been in the MSDN forver ( well, that's where I learned how to do it ). Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
-
I have a friend who works in a patent office. Other things that are patented: 1) A cursor that changes color to the inverse of the background. Most be a solid one (or a stupid one) as I have not seen it in any OS yet. 2) The wheel. (Last year, due to a flaw in the Australian patent laws) /moliate
-
That's not alpha blending, it's just transparency using a 1 bit mask. How can they patent it when the instructions have been in the MSDN forver ( well, that's where I learned how to do it ). Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
this formula appears about one 'page' down in the patent spec (claim 8):
result=((1-mask)*source)+(mask*destination);
that's alpha blending. -c
POKE 808,234
-
I have a friend who works in a patent office. Other things that are patented: 1) A cursor that changes color to the inverse of the background. Most be a solid one (or a stupid one) as I have not seen it in any OS yet. 2) The wheel. (Last year, due to a flaw in the Australian patent laws) /moliate
Do you have the patent number for the wheel? I would love to see the application.
-
this formula appears about one 'page' down in the patent spec (claim 8):
result=((1-mask)*source)+(mask*destination);
that's alpha blending. -c
POKE 808,234
That's what I get for scanning too quickly - I read it as result = (mask) ? source : destination; ( in terms of what the end result was ) Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
-
That's what I get for scanning too quickly - I read it as result = (mask) ? source : destination; ( in terms of what the end result was ) Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
in fairness, it does have the word "boolean" just before that. but, that's definitely not a boolean equation. :) -c
-
Do you have the patent number for the wheel? I would love to see the application.
-
this formula appears about one 'page' down in the patent spec (claim 8):
result=((1-mask)*source)+(mask*destination);
that's alpha blending. -c
POKE 808,234
Chris Losinger wrote: this formula appears about one 'page' down in the patent spec (claim 8): result=((1-mask)*source)+(mask*destination); There are two basic ways of fighting a patent, and this is subject to both. First of all, a patent cannot be something which would be obvious to any practitioner in the field. This is a simple linear combination of two values, and would (IMHO) be the obvious way to blend two values using a mask in the range [0.0 .. 1.0]. Second, a patent must be original. I'm guessing I could find prior art for this in no time flat. The way I see it, this was a lack of foresight on Apple's part. Why stop at a simple linear combination of two values? There may be situations where a non-linear combination is appropriate, and I would think that a patent involving a non-obvious non-linear function that is useful in particular circumstances _could_ be patentable. BTW: does anyone have a patent number for this? I'd like to look it up to see if what they're claiming really is this simple. - Rich I don't know about ignorance, and I don't care about apathy, but I simply will NOT put with intolerance!
-
Chris Losinger wrote: this formula appears about one 'page' down in the patent spec (claim 8): result=((1-mask)*source)+(mask*destination); There are two basic ways of fighting a patent, and this is subject to both. First of all, a patent cannot be something which would be obvious to any practitioner in the field. This is a simple linear combination of two values, and would (IMHO) be the obvious way to blend two values using a mask in the range [0.0 .. 1.0]. Second, a patent must be original. I'm guessing I could find prior art for this in no time flat. The way I see it, this was a lack of foresight on Apple's part. Why stop at a simple linear combination of two values? There may be situations where a non-linear combination is appropriate, and I would think that a patent involving a non-obvious non-linear function that is useful in particular circumstances _could_ be patentable. BTW: does anyone have a patent number for this? I'd like to look it up to see if what they're claiming really is this simple. - Rich I don't know about ignorance, and I don't care about apathy, but I simply will NOT put with intolerance!
-
Chris Losinger wrote: 5,379,129 Thanks. I took a look at it, and I think Apple would have a VERY difficult time defending this one. It really doesn't claim much more than the equation result = ((1-mask)*source)+(mask*destination) which is so painfully obvious to anyone with a background in image processing (or mathematics in general) that it isn't even worth thinking about. I'm sure this patent could be fought on three grounds: (1) obviousness, (2) prior art, and (3) flaws in the patent itself. (For example, the above equation is repeatedly referred to as a "boolean expression", and a figure which shows the use of the algorithm to draw patterned text couldn't possibly result from an application of the algorithm.) For the record, I am not opposed to software patents in principle, but I think we need far stricter standards for what is and isn't patentable. Part (most?) of the problem also lies with the fact that the patent office simply isn't equipped to properly evaluate software patents. - Rich I don't know about ignorance, and I don't care about apathy, but I simply will NOT put with intolerance!