Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-29-2016, 02:29 PM   #76
Pentaxian
Mistral75's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 3,003
K-mount has been in the public domain since day one: Asahi Optical wanted to make it the bayonet equivalent to M42. Even if it hadn't been, it would be now since it appeared more than 40 years ago.

01-29-2016, 02:33 PM   #77
Pentaxian
thibs's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Belgium
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,266
QuoteOriginally posted by Mistral75 Quote
K-mount has been in the public domain since day one: Asahi Optical wanted to make it the bayonet equivalent to M42. Even if it hadn't been, it would be now since it appeared more than 40 years ago.
But KA and dedicates were not hence Ricoh (and Chinon) own K mount derivates.
Afaik KA patents expired.
KAF, KAF2 and KAF3 are still protected.
01-29-2016, 02:49 PM   #78
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,983
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
how wr are sure this will be inside the k-01, this is efficiant in practice and it is any better or worse than what is in D750 ?
I guess I don't understand this question
(1) what did you intend the second word (the one that came out as "wr") to be?
(2) are you talking about the new K-1 (or whatever Pentax calls the new FF camera) or the old K-01 MILC?
(3) what do you mean by "efficiant in practice"? - could you give an example of something that is, and something else that is not?
01-30-2016, 04:02 AM   #79
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I guess I don't understand this question
(1) what did you intend the second word (the one that came out as "wr") to be?
(2) are you talking about the new K-1 (or whatever Pentax calls the new FF camera) or the old K-01 MILC?
(3) what do you mean by "efficiant in practice"? - could you give an example of something that is, and something else that is not?
wr => sorry we,
K01 => K-1 sorry. I tend to mix them as the name is too similar for me. I have a colleague like that too. Our brains have difficulties with similar words. Nobody's perfect.

efficient in practice =>

I just got a one day training on intellectual property last monday as my employer want us to file patents when we invent new things. This is our job after all.

A patents describe a technical process. The patent is granted if there novelty to it and the innovation described here is not obvious to somebody skilled in the field. The patent has to be precise enough so you can actually implement it, but you don't have to. The technical process doesn't have to be useful at all neither.

This is not because you base your products on patents (yours or others) that it is any good. Patents don't bring results or quality, they just describe technical processes. So, even if you are inventor your implementation can be quite average and maybe even if the idea to do it this way was great, in practice it may be a dead end and a waste of time. People try new things all the time, only a few are really successful and interresting. You may decide to not use your patent at all if finally it is too costly, you are not ready or any other reason.

On the total opposite, one could describe a technical process in a scientific publication or even in his blog. If nobody filled a patent before, this just made the process public, meaning nobody can patent it anymore. This is much more common than one could think. Companies do it all the time, it ensure they can use what they have found and pay nothing to the patent office and nobody else will be able to patent it. A researcher that publish his thesis or an article is another typical case.

So you could base you new design on what is public knowledge, that you didn't invent yourself, do it well, have a fantastic product, maybe even file a few patents on top of it and build an empire based on that.

The thing is we will not know if the new AF is any good before we try the final product and we have no idea what patents the new camera use. Likely dozens, but this doesn't mean the product is good or the precise one that Ricoh filled was actually used.

01-30-2016, 04:13 AM   #80
Pentaxian
ffking's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Poole
Posts: 1,876
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
The patent has to be precise enough so you can actually implement it, but you don't have to.
case in point Honeywell patented phase contrast AF but never developed it - then mad $1,000,000s of dollars suing the Japanese companies who used it- even those like Nikon who submitted reams of evidence that they'd researched from first principles - that threat possibly held up the implementation of AF in cameras?
01-30-2016, 04:35 AM   #81
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by ffking Quote
case in point Honeywell patented phase contrast AF but never developed it - then mad $1,000,000s of dollars suing the Japanese companies who used it- even those like Nikon who submitted reams of evidence that they'd researched from first principles - that threat possibly held up the implementation of AF in cameras?
If Nikon was first and filed a patent before OR published the results publicly, then Honeywell would not have managed to get or keep the patent. From all we know, Nikon employees stole the concept from Honeywell, and tried to justify they were first.

It is always difficult to have any idea to who really did what. Maybe they all tried at the same time. Maybe one stole the idea to the other because 1 employee spoke of it when drunk... The one who win is the first to file.

But you know, you don't have to wait much once you have a technical process to file. This isn't published right away, but you got the anteriority... So if you are really first by at least a few months and you file right away, you are covered.

Our employer insisted on that: you should not say anything before you filed the patent, and you should file in early stages. At worst if the patent is for something that prove to be useless, this isn't that important, but at best you protected your company business for the years to come.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 01-30-2016 at 04:42 AM.
01-30-2016, 05:04 AM   #82
Pentaxian
ffking's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Poole
Posts: 1,876
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
If Nikon was first and filed a patent before OR published the results publicly, then Honeywell would not have managed to get or keep the patent. From all we know, Nikon employees stole the concept from Honeywell, and tried to justify they were first.
yuh - point taken - I wasn't really trying to suggest that Nikon was first - as I recall, Honeywell just patented phase detection AF knowing it's the only way to do it but with no intention of developing it, then waited for the camera makers, one after another, to implement it (I think Minolta was first) and sued them for $Ms - even Pentax, who had a commercial relationship with Honeywell previously. This is all slightly foggy memory, and might be inaccurate in a few details, but I was just trying to say that there are areas of patent law which are not helpful - Honeywell did nothing wrong in a legal sense but at the time there was a bit of an outcry about it not being really what patent laws were there for.
01-30-2016, 05:58 AM   #83
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tromsų, Norway
Photos: Albums
Posts: 955
Why doesn't anyone invent an external spot AF system unit to mount on manual focus lenses? Samyang, Laowa and such companies should look into that.

Explanation: A small battery driven unit that can be attached to a lens with a tight band around a non moving part of the barrel, close to the focus ring. It needs a precise and fast stepping motor that connects to the focus ring with a gear. It also needs a distance meter (ultrasound, laser ToF or other technology) and a calibration button. It has to be calibrated for many distances before use. Calibration is done by first adjusting the focus point position to the same as the camera use for spot focusing. A laser for guiding should be useful. Then pointing it to large flat objects at various distances, fine tune focus manually on the focus ring with OVF or enlarged liveview and press the calibration button to store the focus ring position used for that particular distance auto measured by the device. It obviously wont work with small objects at short distances due to parallax difference but should work fine for larger distances.


Last edited by Simen1; 01-30-2016 at 06:05 AM.
01-30-2016, 01:57 PM   #84
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by ffking Quote
yuh - point taken - I wasn't really trying to suggest that Nikon was first - as I recall, Honeywell just patented phase detection AF knowing it's the only way to do it but with no intention of developing it, then waited for the camera makers, one after another, to implement it (I think Minolta was first) and sued them for $Ms - even Pentax, who had a commercial relationship with Honeywell previously. This is all slightly foggy memory, and might be inaccurate in a few details, but I was just trying to say that there are areas of patent law which are not helpful - Honeywell did nothing wrong in a legal sense but at the time there was a bit of an outcry about it not being really what patent laws were there for.
Difficult to say Leica patent different AF technologies and showed the first AF camera apparently using different design from 1960 to 1973. Leica did think it was useless though as for them their clients knew how to focus lenses.

Honeywell did also file patents in 1973.

The first reflex to have some AF was released in 1978 and the first massively produced AF camera in 1977 by Konica... that merged with Minolta in 2003 so it was not minolta back in time. Pentax did the first 35mm AF system in 1981 and Nikon had their first AF camera in 1983...

Really if there one thing Nikon can't say is that they were fast. They could have licenced the leica patents or even the honeywell patent and get something done in the 70s or even the 60s. It look very much like Nikon followed the others, quite late to the game. Even Pentax and minolta were late.

What would have happened if Leica didn't show a camera with AF to the world? If honeywell didn't show how to integretate it in a reflex ?Really ? maybe we would have had AF 10 years later as the camera maker didn't look to be that fast... They looked like followers, not innovator at that time, sorry to say that.
01-30-2016, 09:29 PM   #85
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 152
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
If Nikon was first and filed a patent before OR published the results publicly, then Honeywell would not have managed to get or keep the patent. From all we know, Nikon employees stole the concept from Honeywell, and tried to justify they were first.

It is always difficult to have any idea to who really did what. Maybe they all tried at the same time. Maybe one stole the idea to the other because 1 employee spoke of it when drunk... The one who win is the first to file.

But you know, you don't have to wait much once you have a technical process to file. This isn't published right away, but you got the anteriority... So if you are really first by at least a few months and you file right away, you are covered.

Our employer insisted on that: you should not say anything before you filed the patent, and you should file in early stages. At worst if the patent is for something that prove to be useless, this isn't that important, but at best you protected your company business for the years to come.
At least until a couple of years ago in the U.S., the patent system was first to discover, not first to file. Depending on where Honeywell filed the lawsuit, showing the research could have saved Nikon's butt. Patent trolls are terrible. Honeywell had no interest in developing anything with the patent, didn't even try to sell it. They sat on it hoping to get something out of it and boy they did.
01-31-2016, 01:56 AM   #86
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by Dipsoid Quote
At least until a couple of years ago in the U.S., the patent system was first to discover, not first to file. Depending on where Honeywell filed the lawsuit, showing the research could have saved Nikon's butt. Patent trolls are terrible. Honeywell had no interest in developing anything with the patent, didn't even try to sell it. They sat on it hoping to get something out of it and boy they did.
In general you sue in the worst country for your victim, that's obvious.

Sure this is first to discover but then how do you prove it? A patent or a publication of your research is a proof... And if anything is published, then you can't even pretent to patent, including if it is you that published it. This is always checked by the patent office. The thing to do is to file early, you don't need to have the final device working or whatever, you just need the description of the technical process.

So basically, it was Nikon words against Honeywell evidences...
01-31-2016, 01:59 AM   #87
Senior Member




Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Hamburg
Posts: 287
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Difficult to say Leica patent different AF technologies and showed the first AF camera apparently using different design from 1960 to 1973. Leica did think it was useless though as for them their clients knew how to focus lenses.

Honeywell did also file patents in 1973.

The first reflex to have some AF was released in 1978 and the first massively produced AF camera in 1977 by Konica... that merged with Minolta in 2003 so it was not minolta back in time. Pentax did the first 35mm AF system in 1981 and Nikon had their first AF camera in 1983...

Really if there one thing Nikon can't say is that they were fast. They could have licenced the leica patents or even the honeywell patent and get something done in the 70s or even the 60s. It look very much like Nikon followed the others, quite late to the game. Even Pentax and minolta were late.

What would have happened if Leica didn't show a camera with AF to the world? If honeywell didn't show how to integretate it in a reflex ?Really ? maybe we would have had AF 10 years later as the camera maker didn't look to be that fast... They looked like followers, not innovator at that time, sorry to say that.
Amazing really that Leitz (of all companies in the world) shoud have pioneered autofocus.
01-31-2016, 10:59 AM   #88
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,983
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
In general you sue in the worst country for your victim, that's obvious.

Sure this is first to discover but then how do you prove it? A patent or a publication of your research is a proof... And if anything is published, then you can't even pretent to patent, including if it is you that published it. This is always checked by the patent office. The thing to do is to file early, you don't need to have the final device working or whatever, you just need the description of the technical process.

So basically, it was Nikon words against Honeywell evidences...
At places of serious research, the practice for years was to record all work in a bound lab notebook, which the boss signed and dated regularly. The stated reason for that practice was to use that as evidence in court cases ... "our researcher did this on that date".
01-31-2016, 11:11 AM   #89
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,864
Seriously staircase.. do you own a K-3?
The difference between a K-5 and a k-3 was immediately noticeable, and when i go the other way now and pick up my K-5 after using the K-3 the difference is once again quite noticeable. IN fact since Pentax execs announced AF was a priority several years ago, there has been steady improvement with every model release. While you place get value on tracking, for many it's irrelevant. Photography that uses tracking is a small subset of the big picture.
02-02-2016, 06:28 AM   #90
JPT
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tokyo
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,252
Original Poster
Another Patent: A method to randomise the the microscopic surface pattern on a focusing screen to reduce moire.

https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://egami.blog.so-ne...02&prev=search

I'm really curious to look through that massive looking viewfinder on the Pentax full frame. Actually, this string of patents is teasing me much better than the teaser campaign itself.

Last edited by JPT; 02-02-2016 at 07:04 AM.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
accuracy, af, body, camera, canon, d700, fa 28-70 f4, focus, images, improvement, ir, k10d, lens, lenses, light, low-light, nikon, patent, pentax, pentax news, pentax rumors, people, post, ricoh, sensor, star, telephoto
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ricoh Patent: Improved DSLR AF system JPT Pentax DSLR Discussion 18 12-14-2015 04:20 PM
Ricoh smartphone docking camera patent D1N0 Pentax News and Rumors 17 11-18-2015 07:58 PM
Ricoh lens patent and new q sensor? Belnan Pentax News and Rumors 28 11-15-2014 06:45 AM
Ricoh patent for 24/2 APS-C lens robbiec Pentax News and Rumors 3 03-19-2014 09:40 AM
Does sigma HSM lens improve AF accuracy on the k5? telly0050 Pentax K-5 10 09-19-2012 08:19 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:36 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top