or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › Kaleidescape- how will it handle Bluray and HD DVD with hdcp?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kaleidescape- how will it handle Bluray and HD DVD with hdcp? - Page 5

post #121 of 835
Quote:


And this is really where my previous post is relevant. You say it seems to be this, but because you haven't actually duplicated their efforts, you don't know. And surely you have encountered people in your time, people in your area of expertise, who have claimed that something or other that you did was "no big deal." The only thing is, they didn't actually do it, or for that matter anything close to it, so they really didn't appreciate some of the complexity under the hood that isn't clear on the surface.

Oh, believe me, I didn't state it as strongly as I actually feel because I didn't think it would be an issue. But I know for a fact I could implement it without much strain at all. I've written a lot of software, I've been thinking about this subject a lot because we are moving more into this area, and I can see very clearly in my mind what it would require.

It would take a few weeks to implement that apsect of the system, mostly just due to the amount of code I would need to write, but not because there's any real rocket science involved. It's just a lot of mostly grunt-work code, as is all software. Since we have such an enormous code base to build on, there would be less work for us that there might be for someone building such a thing from scratch.

I've said the same about our product before. It's just an enormous amount of well understood stuff that is very well implemented and packaged. The barrier to entry isn't comlexity, it's the willingness to do the huge amount of work involved. But hard work isn't patentable.

Quote:


Sure, Google projects distances down to a single dimension, but that's actually tremendously simpler (well, let me restate: there are far fewer unique ways to do it, so there's less room for innovation in that particular step). Is there any idea why it is significant, as pointed out in claim 20, that the "offsets" in each dimension are relatively prime? Or why it is significant, as pointed out in claim 32, that one offset is "within ln(N) of 2 sqrt(N)"? Heck if I know.

Well, there are doctoral thesis ways of implementing things and there are much more practical ways of doing it. I'd take a lot more practical way that would provide a very reasonable result with not overly high overhead. It wouldn't rest on any theoretical basis, but it would just fine. We aren't talking about a search engine for research or anything here really, just a way to find other movies that are similar in one or more weighted ways. You provide default weights for the more obvious fields (genre(s), director, common actors, etc...), but allow them to be adjusted by the user, and do a search that fills in a sorted list based on final score.

Even in a huge DVD database there wouldn't be much more than 20K entries, which you can search quickly by just providing sorted keys for each attribute. There are lots of nitty gritty details of course, but it wouldn't require anything terribly complex.

In the end, it's about business and if we provide a solution that works basically as well, that's good enough. I doubt seriously any customer would make a decision based on the theoretical soundness of the algorithm involved, hopefully. If they ask for all the movies with Tom Hanks and get all the movies with Tom Hanks, presented by how important a role he played (based on his position in the list of actors), etc..., that's good enough. And I can't imagine how anyone could claim that we can't do that because they have a patent on such a process.
post #122 of 835
Quote:


Well, there are doctoral thesis ways of implementing things and there are much more practical ways of doing it. I'd take a lot more practical way that would provide a very reasonable result with not overly high overhead.

Well, geez, then what are we arguing about? If you're not going to try to duplicate the patented technology, then it's not an issue. If you explicitly deviate from their claims in significant material ways, then... "Nothing to see here, move along..."

Patents are not limited to the best way of accomplishing a goal, just the first way or a novel new way. If someone else can effectively accomplish the same goal by going a different route, then that diminishes (or eliminates) the patent's value, but it doesn't invalidate the patent itself. It means that the original inventor took a chance that his way was the only practical way---and was proven wrong.

By all means, Dean, prove 'em wrong! It would be great for your software to have such a feature.
post #123 of 835
Quote:


By all means, Dean, prove 'em wrong! It would be great for your software to have such a feature.

Well, having made all those arguments, I'm not sure it's that important relative to various other things. The comments made by a couple owners here might indicate it's something that might not provide huge customer appeal relative to other things that could be implemented in the same time (and implementing X always means Y doesn't get done.) Though there's always something be said for features that 'give good demo', in the end the stuff that people actually use themost should probably be targeted first.

We might end up just implementing a few types of obvious associations that would provide the biggest bang for the buck, like other movies with the same actor or by the same director, that people would most likely need when they are doing the 'what the heck was that movie' senior moment thing. By genre is always there and is probably far and away the most common filtering mechanism.
post #124 of 835
Well, given the scope of your software, I'm not surprised this might be low on your priority list... get back to work!
post #125 of 835
I guess the real issue, which would be really difficult it seems to me to determine from reading that application document which seems kind of the antithesis of what one would write if trying to lucidly describe the process, is whether they are asking for a patent on a very specific aspect of the process, or the process as a whole, or something in between? I guess maybe that's part of the patent game to some extent to make it as vague as possible in order to cover as much ground as possible. But could even a lawyer really tease out of that what exactly they are claiming is the original invention?
post #126 of 835
That document is written in perfect patent lawyerese, most definitely. You'd need a lawyer to figure out exactly what it is their claiming is covered by the patent. But at first glance it seems that the content distance and projection calculations are central to the patent claims.

Here's a good article I Googled up about patent infringement claims, that talks about when something is or is not an infringement:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM...ters-9205.html
post #127 of 835
What good is a patent if you do not have the money to fight an infrigement.
Case in point and I wont mention any names but several on this forum know what Im refereing to. A small company had their butt covered with a patent but could not bring the technology to market. A large company comes to market with the technology clearly infringing on the patent. Going to court to fight the infringement could/would cost hundreds of thousands in up front funds. If a larger company sees an opportunity to make some money they grab it. Chances are the smaller company does not stand a chance fighting something that could take years in court and put them under financially over time in hopes their gambling in court pays off. Even if you win getting the money starts another longggg game.
post #128 of 835
Yes, that is an unfortunate problem indeed. But that's not to say that the system is totally biased against the little guy. For example, the plaintiff can petition the court to suspend sales of the alleged infringing technology until the case can be resolved or settled. If the evidence of infringement is compelling, the judge will sometimes grant this motion. This can force even the biggest, most arrogant, large company to the bargaining table.

But sometimes, the best course of action is not to seek a patent at all, but to keep the technology a trade secret. This is hard to do if someone can just buy your product and open it up, or deduce readily enough how you accomplished it. But in some cases (where the technology is hidden inside a chip or some other closed system, for example), simple trade secret protection can be the better choice.
post #129 of 835
There's a pretty dramatic example of the other sort going on right now with the Blackberry, which was on the verge of getting shut down because it infringed on a smaller company's patent. In some ways, if you have a really strong patent, almost the best thing that can happen to you is for some other company to hit it big with something that infringes on your patent. If the case is strong, you'll get a good lawyer on contigency and if you win you get a good payoff without having to go through all the mess of creating a company and product :-)
post #130 of 835
BTW, that's why I don't really worry so much about trying to patent stuff of ours. Just as many encryption systems depend on 'incomputability', which doesn't depend on hiding a secret or protecting an algorithm, but lets everyone know the secret and just depends on the vast amount of work it would take to break any one document, I prefer to depend on 'indevelopability' to protect ourselves. I.e. just have a product so extensive that it doesn't matter whether anyone else can look at it and understand every single thing it does, because the work required to create a competitive product is the barrier.

That way, we don't have to worry about someone else coming up with a more clever idea than ours, and putting us out of business overnight. There's no way to get from there to here except through a long and painful development process that can't be shortcut.
post #131 of 835
Like I said above... That company just got a 600+ milllion dollar settlement from the Blackberry folks! Oh, to have that kind of patent problem...
post #132 of 835
Imagine my wealth had I registered Home Theater back in 1979.
post #133 of 835
Oh, let's not go back there.
post #134 of 835
Then they would have called it Home Cinema instead.
post #135 of 835
I also coined Advanced Home Cinema in 1991 (remember the infamous check by the Dolphin Quarterback). Boy have I cornered this market.
post #136 of 835
My Stomach runneth over.
post #137 of 835
Thread Starter 
Alan- being a memberof both bluray and hddvd groups, do you think it is possible that Kaleidescape could release one reader for all three (dvd as well) formats?
post #138 of 835
Unless a company like NEC makes a universal transport (BD/HD-DVD/DVD/CD), Kaleidescape won't be able to make a universal reader.
post #139 of 835
This is off topic, but I thought some of you smarter with netwroking than I might be able to lend a hand. I'm putting together a better backup solution after a recent mishap and have posted about my plan in the HTPC section. Any thoughts you folks had on the matter would be appreciated:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=652391

I know it might be better suited for a non AV forum, but the folks here tend to be more mature than the many adolescents that troll some computer and networking specific forums.

Jeff
post #140 of 835
Are not, are not, are not!!
post #141 of 835
I know you are, but what am I?
post #142 of 835
Quote:


Unless a company like NEC makes a universal transport (BD/HD-DVD/DVD/CD), Kaleidescape won't be able to make a universal reader.

...and, (IMHO) I don't believe it would be worth their time and effort to do so. I don't see either BlueRay or HD-DVD surviving more than 12-18 months in any case.
post #143 of 835
Dennis,
Do you really believe that both BR and HDDVD will be dead by the fall of 2007 ? If so, why ?

Art
post #144 of 835
ONline delivery (not JUST streaming) of high quality content is the future.
post #145 of 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzman View Post

ONline delivery (not JUST streaming) of high quality content is the future.

So you believe that this form of delivery will kill HDDVD and BR in < 18 months ?

Art
post #146 of 835
I don't think so, not immediately at least. We don't even have streaming of SD content yet really. I think it will be some time before that supplants a hard disc HD format.
post #147 of 835
D-Theater lasted longer than that. I cannot imagine HD-DVD and BluRay both failing in that amount of time. The only way I could see either failing in that time frame is if they are getting their ass kicked in the format war and supporters jump ship to the winning format.

Even if they offered downloads of HD content in the next 12-18 months, how will they sell to people who have dialup or even DSL since 768kbps isn't going to get it done. Plus there are plenty of people who don't want to muck around with a PC to watch a movie.

Look at how many people still go out and buy the CDs - myself included. We don't even have lossless audio available online and how easy is that?!?!
post #148 of 835
There's no way online delivery of video is going to kill shiney discs any time soon, IMO. Actually, it's not even my opinion, it's just a fact on the ground. You can't sell a product until you can get it into the customer's hands and there's no practical way to do that right now. 10 years from now, I have no doubt that DVD level video will be deliverable to a reasonably large number of people. By that time, highly compressed DVD level video will be the LBR MP3 of video content and people will be sucking it down to their portables and whatnot.

But delivery of high quality HD content to the home to more than a minute number of customers just ain't gonna be practical any time soon. It could certainly be done, but without a broad market, setting up the infrastructure to support it doesn't seem like a paying proposition.

Personally, I think that the sat/cable folks have a better chance at it than network based delivery. The sat folks are moving to MPEG4, which will allow them to deliver much better HD content within their capacity limitations. Combine that with a DVR type box that can store the movie till you are ready to watch it, and it would make for a far more reasonable delivery mechanism, it seems to me.

But I don't think that's going to remotely destroy the shiney disc. People still do want to own their favorite movies. Even Joe Blow buys a certain number of discs for repeated viewing.
post #149 of 835
Chris and Mike,
I agree ! I think we will have at least a few years of one or the other or both of these.

Art
post #150 of 835
Well, Dennis' claim did not mention online delivery at all. I could see his prediction coming true if a protracted format war makes it difficult to choose between formats, because each format has only a portion of the titles a consumer might want. Continuing SD-DVD sales and the ramping up of electronic delivery are going to make it easier for consuemrs to stay away. (Note that electronic delivery does not necessarily mean Internet delivery; as Dean points out, satellite and cable providers can provide services of this nature over their networks.) The result could be a repeat of DVD-A/SACD (though that did take far longer than 12-18 months, and it's still not "dead", just comatose)...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+) › Kaleidescape- how will it handle Bluray and HD DVD with hdcp?