-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Nikon sues Sigma for ¥12.6 billion over VR lenses
- Thread starter Joseph S Wisniewski
- Start date
Roland Karlsson
Forum Pro
Look at patents. Many are obviously not inventions. How did they get accepted?
And if you want examples - I can give you two. Amazon one click and pop up menus.
You can look at this also http://www.aagg.net/7212354.htm
Hmmm ... that one is so strange that it might be a joke. But I have seen several lens patents like this one ... so it might be a real one. And if you think it looks like an invention - then you can tell me what it invents.
There is no conspiracy. There seldom is. Illuminati does not exist. Its just that powerful organisations find ways of getting what they want. Happens all the time.
--
Roland
support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)
X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
bobn2
Forum Pro
Slight correction, they are not what you choose to call inventions. Patent examiners are trained to spot inventions.
In what sense are those not an invention? Are you saying there was prior art?
It invents a new lens configuration. Zeiss patented the Tessar configuration, are you saying that they should not have been able to?
If your company was routinely paying patent examiners to grant patents on things that were not original inventions, then that sounds like a conspiracy to me, or are you suggesting that wasn't what you were saying?
Well, of course they do, but if what they want is to get patents for things that are not original inventions and if the ways they find are paying off patent examiners, then that is a corrupt conspiracy.
--
Bob
Roland Karlsson
Forum Pro
Then their training is flawed - or rather - what I call flawed.
Pop up menu? I am a programmer. I make hundreds of more advanced designs every month.
Inventing a configuration?
The Tessar lens was an invention. One of the classic inventions in history of photography. I tried to find the patent - but could not do that directly. Maybe its only a configuration. But a configuration 1902 might have been OK as a patent description if the resulting lens really produced usable results.
Modern lenses are made by optical design programs.
NOTE - I dont say that a modern lens dont need to be protected. But just saying what lenses are plastic, concave, etc ... is not an invention any more.
--
Roland
support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)
X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
bobn2
Forum Pro
Exactly, you are proposing that you are more expert in spotting inventions than they are. I disagree.
I doubt whether what Amazon patented was the pop up menu, there was undoubtedly prior art. You seem to have a propensity for making statements about patents which should or shouldn't have been patented without actually bothering to see what has been claimed in these patents.
The point is not advanced designs, it is original designs - no requirement to be advanced. And if you really are producing that level of originality, you are an atypical programmer, Most programmers I come across do very little that hasn't been done before, they just recycle well known things.
Indeed. How else would a new configuration come about?
If it was an invention, then so too is this. There is no fundamental difference.
I thought that you were a programmer. Is one of the things that you have invented artificial creativity? Lenses are not 'made' by optical design programs. they are designed by human beings, using optical design programs as aids. You might have heard of the concept, it is called 'computer aided design'.
How is it any different from the description of a Tessar? (Obviously the lens is different from a Tessar, otherwise it would not have been patentable)
--
Bob
Roland Karlsson
Forum Pro
To you obviously anything new is an invention. You totally ignore the demand for inventive height.
A configuration of a lens has no inventive height in itself.
The Tessar had inventive height. It was revolutionary. This could be proven.
The motivation for patents is that someone that have put forth a substantial work and/or have made a clever invention shall be able to profit from that invention undisturbed by copy cats.
But lens configurations that are the result of a commercially available computer program has not necessarily any height.
So - for a configuration to be patentable there has to be some kind of motivation why its an invention and not only the result of running a program.
And one reason for this is of course - that if two companies buys the same optical design program they may get the same lens design easily. Why should then anyone of them be able to patent it?
So - if a company makes a lens and wants it protected it should be required to show why its an invention. Not just write down a configuration. Why is this particular configuration an invention.
--
Roland
support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)
X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html
bobn2
Forum Pro
Not at all, I discriminate, just like the examiners do. It's just that you seem to set yourself up ans an expert on what is and isn't an invention over me and the patent examiners. Well, that kind of self aggrandisement is your right, but I don't happen to agree with it.
It's not a concept I even acknowledge
Well, I couldn't say since 'inventive height' is an absurd concept. Certainly a configuration can be original , they don't just occur. Very many inventions are about configurations, and if you say that they don't count you rule out almost every mechanical invention (and by some arguments, chemical ones too)
How? How do you propose to discriminate between the Tessar, which you think is revolutionary, and this new lens design which you think shouldn't be patented. You say is could be proven, well I'm calling your bluff, prove it by producing a simple test which would discriminate between the Tessar and this other lens.
Exactly. But presumably someone who makes a simple evolution of the Cooke triplet by just changing the rear element to a cemented doublet shouldn't be allowed to profit form such an obvious and inventively low 'invention' which is actually just a 'configuration'.
I think you know very little about computer programs. Programs such as Zemax do not design lenses, they simulate them.
As I say, you do not know what you are talking about.
It is an invention because it is a new configuration of elements that has not been used before, just like the Tessar. The fact that nowadays lens designers can run simulations on digital computers and test their designs much faster than was possible when the Tessar was designed is immaterial, or are you now suggesting that any invention for which the process of development used computer simulation should be invalid?
Frankly, I think you know very little about the things you talk about, either the patent system or optical design, and from your misapprension about the function of programs such as Zemax, not a great deal about computer programs and what they can and can't do, either.
--
Bob
robert1955
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 8,167
- Solutions
- 10
- Reaction score
- 4,964
igb
Senior Member
Not really. I'd say that technical solutions imply potential societal benefit.
-------------------------------------------------------
My Galleries: http://webs.ono.com/igonzalezbordes/index.html
--
-------------------------------------------------------
My Galleries: http://webs.ono.com/igonzalezbordes/index.html
igb
Senior Member
That would fall into the categaory of things that are not worth protecting but that get a pass because, at leat, they are a contraption.
--
-------------------------------------------------------
My Galleries: http://webs.ono.com/igonzalezbordes/index.html
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum