[Fototim]

As I understand this with pattents, Rui is correct.

When buying a technology company the know how, read pattens, are the main asset.

[robgo2]

[QUOTE=Frogroast;450803]There's definitely a difference between the patent application date and the patent issue date.

There's also a difference between and patent and a device based on that patent ever being produced. People and firms frequently patent ideas that never come to fruition.

Rob

[navcom]

[QUOTE=robgo2;452653]

There's definitely a difference between the patent application date and the patent issue date.

There's also a difference between and patent and a device based on that patent ever being produced. People and firms frequently patent ideas that never come to fruition.

Rob

...or they patent ideas so nobody else can use it, regardless of whether they implement the idea or not.

It is not unusual for a company to patent an idea years before it ever shows up in a product. I've seen instances where a company will patent an idea and it will not show up for 10+ years. Plus, in many cases, it takes years to get the full patent (patent pending).

[RuiC]

So you mean it was first filed by Pentax in 2006 and then published under Hoyas name in 2008 or 2009? How can you see that?

For Pentax:

US Published Application Full-Text Database Boolean Search

then enter in term1 argument: 20070019945 ;

For Hoya:

US Patent Full-Text Database Boolean Search

then enter ... : 7471891

I've been following up Pentax then Hoya's Patent applications and I can foresee what they may deliver in the future. Wonderful cameras that's it.
Regards
Rui

[RuiC]

Now look at this Camera with changeable Image Sensor Pack:

United States Patent: 7471335

Click on the Images button.

Regards
Rui

[RuiC]

And for those wishing Faster Focus look at this:

United States Patent: 7460779

Regards
Rui

[thePiRaTE!!]

Now look at this Camera with changeable Image Sensor Pack:

United States Patent: 7471335

Click on the Images button.

Regards
Rui

Well, that could solve the arguement over which sensor to put in what body...

a CCD was mentioned though, but I suppose things have changed since 05.

Interesting to consider the possibilities. Also makes me realize why lawyers exist...


K.

[montecarlo]

If it's true I hope the viewfinder, the optical one, is not compromised (less big, less bright). Otherwise, for me it's useless (any kind of LV or EVF). The viewfinder of the K10D/K20D is perfect like it is now
Because Sony A300/A350 has some mechanism that (sensor) records the data through the viewfinder (optical) to be used for the LV, the optical viewfinder is smaller than the one on A200. I know is another thing but still... .

[RuiC]

Every lens has a characteristic distortion curve. An in-lens EEPROM would record each lens aberration patterns so they can be transmitted to a camera body for built-in correction.

Next patent for such a camera:

United States Patent Application: 0080239099

The camera body used to deploy the invention was the MZ-D. Imagine a FF body.

Regards
Rui

[RuiC]

[QUOTE=navcom;452723]

...or they patent ideas so nobody else can use it, regardless of whether they implement the idea or not.

It is not unusual for a company to patent an idea years before it ever shows up in a product. I've seen instances where a company will patent an idea and it will not show up for 10+ years. Plus, in many cases, it takes years to get the full patent (patent pending).

That's right. A patent application is not a commitment to manufacture. There are many examples, for instance, Philips Eindhoven produced around 1991 a CD player, model CD850 using Bitstream technology based on an own patent which was applied for around 1947, that because only then the VLSI (Very Large Scale Integration) circuits would allow a practical, trustworthy set.

Regards
Rui

[reeftool]

Another value of owning patents is the money that licensing brings in if another company wants to manufacture a similar product. There are companys out there that do nothing more than buy up patents and make money off licensing them out. A companys R&D dept. will most likely apply for patents on many things and designs they come up with even if they decide they may not ever use it because it prevents anybody else from manufacturing it without paying a license fee.

[Philippos]

Another value of owning patents is the money that licensing brings in if another company wants to manufacture a similar product. There are companys out there that do nothing more than buy up patents and make money off licensing them out. A companys R&D dept. will most likely apply for patents on many things and designs they come up with even if they decide they may not ever use it because it prevents anybody else from manufacturing it without paying a license fee.

... and so begins the endless dance of lawsuits between companies . If you watch the tech world closely you should know that there are thousands of lawsuits every year where companies claim infringement of their patents or parts of them. To me this is just holding the industry back as there are countless patents that never get marketed and exist only to prevent competitors from... well, being competitive.

It is rumoured that both Westinghouse and General Electric posess patents of generators that achieve over-unity, thus creating "free" energy. As they make more money from selling energy however, these patents remain well hidden. BMW has a patent of a water-powered engine (as I imagine some more companies do) that has never seen the light of day, as there is much more profit to be made from internal combustion engines.

Overall, I am totally against the current patent system.

[RMabo]

Every lens has a characteristic distortion curve. An in-lens EEPROM would record each lens aberration patterns so they can be transmitted to a camera body for built-in correction. i

Yes, a natural extension of the MTF chip.
I was actually expecting this technology to enter the in-camera RAW-development function in the K20D, but it was obviously not ready yet. I was a bit too optimistic here.
But I still expect distorsion and vignetting correction to come in future versions of the in-camera RAW-development software, based upon information in the chip in the camera.
Of course the lenses needs to be upgraded with this chip, so it may only be functionable with newer lenses. We'll see what happens.

[pingflood]

It is rumoured that both Westinghouse and General Electric posess patents of generators that achieve over-unity, thus creating "free" energy. As they make more money from selling energy however, these patents remain well hidden. BMW has a patent of a water-powered engine (as I imagine some more companies do) that has never seen the light of day, as there is much more profit to be made from internal combustion engines.

Overall, I am totally against the current patent system.

Sure, and somebody invented a carburetor that gets 100MPG but the evil oil companies buried it.

[navcom]

As they make more money from selling energy however, these patents remain well hidden. BMW has a patent of a water-powered engine (as I imagine some more companies do) that has never seen the light of day, as there is much more profit to be made from internal combustion engines.

How does a patent remain "well hidden"? Patents are public information by their very nature...at least they are here in the U.S. They exist to tell everyone that this here is my idea and I get first crack at the profits and recognition from this idea. If a company did develop such technology as the impossible engine, they wouldn't patent it if they were trying to hide it. By filing for a patent, they would make it known to everyone. But the risk in not filing would be that someone else would beat them to it, which is inevitable. Your logic doesn't make sense. Either the option is still there for anyone to profit off of an "impossible" engine, or everyone would know the technology exists and who owns the rights to it.

And if you say that big companies have unlimited power to intimidate anyone from pursuing it, then I ask you, why are there some damn many Nike shoe or other name-brand imitations coming from China and other countries into the U.S. in direct violation to patent laws?!

If a company decides that they don't want to use their patent and would rather license it, that's their choice. They spent the time and money to develop the technology and the time and money to patent it. They deserve to be able to choose how it's used, not someone else. You would be the first person screaming if you spent a million dollars on a technology only to have someone else swoop in and demand to use it because you hadn't yet. It would be no different than someone stealing your photos online. You created them and they belong to you. Just because you aren't making money off them doesn't give someone else the right to take it from you.

As far as hidden engines that do the impossible. Believe me, there is money to be made from a generator that produces it's own energy or an engine that runs on water. Show me the patent on either one please. I don't think there is, which means someone else will come up with it if it is possible because the recognition and profit that would come from such inventions would be unstoppable. As Bill Gates said, "I am not afraid of Intel or Apple. I'm afraid of the guy in his garage coming up with the replacement for Microsoft."

If these patents do exist, then they own it, end of story...and we would all know about it. There is no way it would remain "hidden". And every one of their competition would be trying to find a way to produce something similar without violating the patent. Also, patent's eventually expire and then it's open season.

It's so easy to say something "exists" and there is a conspiracy to prevent it from being known without any proof.

It's like a friend of mine that insists that the contrails from jets in the stratosphere are really chemicals being poured on us by the government for human testing. No matter how you try to explain the physics behind contrails or the impossible logistics involved with such a conspiracy on all commercial jetliners and the millions of people that would have to be involved, they just won't believe it, because they want to believe there is a conspiracy regardless of the logic.