[hcarvalhoalves]

Canon did this about 18 years ago.

Canon EOS 5 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yeah, but it sucked, and they gave up.

The reason why it sucked, though, is related to the limitations of SLR design (and also the plain electronics they had available at the time). An EVF isn't limited in the same way.

[hcarvalhoalves]

Apple just beat you to it. The day they heard someone else came up with the idea, they patented anything that can possibly have the ability to auto focus. They'll be suing you in two weeks.

They'll be sending everyone in the world a cease and desist letter for auto focusing with our eyes within the month.

LOL

To be fair though, Apple sues just as much as other bogus companies sue them over anything remotely innovative. It just happens that when they sue, that goes to the news.

The bottomline is that patents are stupid.

[RioRico]

The bottomline is that patents are stupid.

Patents aren't stupid, but software patents are toxic. The whole unlimited IP regime is toxic. Patents (and copyrights) should give something like 5 years monopoly, then zip.

[hcarvalhoalves]

Patents aren't stupid, but software patents are toxic. The whole unlimited IP regime is toxic. Patents (and copyrights) should give something like 5 years monopoly, then zip.

What's wrong is thinking you can have a monopoly on an idea. That's stupid. Not only you hinder people from building new ideas on top of other ideas (which is not how research works), but you also waste a lot of money on lawyers to defend that monopoly.

Many practical inventions were created almost simutaneosly by multiple people around the world. The telephone is known to have been invented by 5 different people, as early as 1844, but Graham Bell was the only one to "profit" as late as 1876 because US granted him a patent on it. Same thing happened to the light bulb, the radio, the automobile, the airplane, and keeps happening to many other inventions. How can you judge who has the right to explore an idea exclusively, when research is such a collective act, and invention itself can't exist without building on top of work done by others?

Bottomline is, patents are bullshit because the method to figure out if a patent should or not be granted is completely subjective. Moreover, you shouldn't have to rely on the monopoly of an idea to make money. If it is indeed innovative, you will make money releasing it first in the market. If other people can copy it so easily before you can earn a profit, then it's obviously not an innovation. It's as simple as that.

[v5planet]

Bottomline is, patents are bullshit because the method to figure out if a patent should or not be granted is completely subjective. Moreover, you shouldn't have to rely on the monopoly of an idea to make money. If it is indeed innovative, you will make money releasing it first in the market. If other people can copy it so easily before you can earn a profit, then it's obviously not an innovation. It's as simple as that.

Don't think I agree with that statement. Ability to scoop and reproduce someone else's ideas doesn't mean the ideas aren't innovative or difficult to come up with in the first place. Many of the things we use today are extremely simple, but wouldn't exist unless someone put hard work into generating the idea. At their best, patents exist to protect the little guys, the innovators, from having their hard work copied by imaginationless entities who nonetheless are smart enough to reproduce something and have the resources to put it to market before you can.

It is naive to think simply having an innovative idea means you will win the market. There are always people out there looking to claim the ideas of others as their own and get rich/famous off of them. For the record, as a former scientist, I can tell you the exact same thing happens in research. It's a sad situation, but if you go to scientific conferences, nobody presents unpublished information, because some other lab or eager competitor with more money, bigger facilities, greater political clout or "brand" recognition at scientific journals, and a larger stable of graduate students or postdoctoral slaves will run to the lab with your idea, generate data and push it through to publication before you get off of your EconoBus and back into your lab coat. At that point, months (or years?) of your hard work has gone down the tubes and out to pad some other scientist's reputation.

The bottom line is that the patent system isn't perfect, and it's easy to abuse and exploit, but without it there is no protection for innovators and idea generators.

[Lowell Goudge]

in reading the article, and thinking about the weight of lens elements, i doubt this will ever make it into a DSLR, the reason is the energy requirement to move the considerable mass of a lens element the distance required to focus, while it may be possible the battery and torque requirements will certainly slow things down.

What's that? Battery technology is the limit?

Sure it is, it was the limit for electric cars 30 years ago, and it remains the limit for electric cars. while computers and the like have become more efficient and more powerful, requiring smaller batteries, and small batteries have had significant energy density improvements, when it comes to higher power and moving mechanical parts, the real gains are still being waited for

[hcarvalhoalves]

At their best, patents exist to protect the little guys, the innovators, from having their hard work copied by imaginationless entities

The real world shows patents don't work for that, either. The little guy doesn't have the deep pockets necessary to fight against a big company who happens to "steal" his idea. Either the company will settle for a deal paying much less than what the little guy thinks his idea is worth, or the little guy will head to lawyers who want to take his case for a 50/50 deal.

What happens most of the time, though, is that the little guy's company will be acquired by a bigger one, so they accumulate a patent arsenal with which to nuke their competition. A real legal cold war that doesn't benefit anyone besides lawyers.

who nonetheless are smart enough to reproduce something and have the resources to put it to market before you can.

If you didn't put it in the market first, or didn't seek a partnership to put it in the market first, it's your fault. How in the earth do you want to sue someone because, well, you believe you thought of it before them, but you just sat on your idea? That's bullshit. That's stimulating scarcity and monopoly instead of competition.

I work in the internet software business, and in this market if you are not the first go live and attract users, it doesn't matter a damn thing. This happens because it's a service market. Why the product market has to be any different?

Ideas alone are worth exactly $ 0 if you don't put in practice. It's foolish to think otherwise, in that you put too much merit in the idea, but not on the realization. If anyone can come and reproduce it, just as good (or better) than you, it doesn't mean you are doing anything innovative to being with.

For instance, look at all those smartphones copying iPhone. They all feature multi-touch screens, basically the same form-factor, applications, etc. Still, Apple sold more iPhones than people born in the world during the last quarter. How is that? Even though the competition can "copy" ideas, it takes much more effort to reproduce the experience you get from using an iPhone, since it's all about putting ideas in practice in a coehisive product.

---

Last edited by hcarvalhoalves; 01-25-2012 at 02:39 PM.

[v5planet]

The real world shows patents don't work for that, either. The little guy doesn't have the deep pockets necessary to fight against a big company who happens to "steal" his idea. Either the company will settle for a deal paying much less than what the little guy thinks his idea is worth, or the little guy will head to lawyers who want to take his case for a small 50% commission.

What happens most of the time, though, is that the little guy's company will be acquired by a bigger one, so they accumulate a patent arsenal with which to nuke their competition. A real legal cold war that doesn't benefit anyone besides lawyers.



If you didn't put it in the market first, or didn't seek a partnership to put it in the market first, it's your fault. How in the earth do you want to sue someone because, well, you believe you thought of it before them, but you just sat on your idea? That's bullshit. That's stimulating scarcity and monopoly instead of competition.

I work in the internet software business, and in this market if you are not the first go live and attract users, it doesn't matter a damn thing. This happens because it's a service market. Why the product market has to be any different?

Ideas alone are worth exactly $ 0 if you don't put it in practice. It's foolish to think otherwise.

The costs of development and scalability are much lower for software than for goods that need to be manufactured. Marketing and acquiring brand visibility isn't trivial in any field, but when you put something on the internet it can be accessed instantly anywhere on the globe any number of times at almost no additional cost beyond meeting bandwidth requirements. A small group of penniless hackers can use their wits and a plethora of free tools to build an entirely competent product AND distribute it. That is the difference.

The venture capital needed for this is trivial compared to developing, fabricating materials, and manufacturing solid goods. If there is no ownership of ideas, a big company with enormous resources can swoop in, look at what you're doing, say "yes that is a good idea, but we can finish it faster, exploit our global manufacturing facilities and distribution channels and pretend you never existed." Joe "I'm building something really cool" Blow won't have access to a manufacturing plant worth a hundred million dollars and a trained work force to operate it; nor will he have relations with companies that can provide him materials at tremendous bulk discount from GO. It's not about "sitting on an idea". It's about having time to grow it into something that financially rewards your honest entrepreneurship before someone else can take it away from you. Joe Blow can start small, market locally, gradually gain repute and $$$, allowing him to iteratively invest in larger scale marketing, manufacturing and distribution. Or, what frankly makes more sense, is he can eventually appeal to the resources of a large company to reach broad market visibility by selling his idea. If he has no legal right to his idea, however, his hard work is just asking to be plundered by some corporate pirate without a lick of compensation or recognition for the effort.

You can argue that current patent laws are ineffective, poorly designed, whatever. Arguing that someone shouldn't be able to own an idea for any window of time whatsoever or have any leverage against established, highly monied corporate enterprises that lack innovative capacities of their own is ridiculous. At that point there is 0 incentive to innovate anything because the risk of outright theft is too high.

[hcarvalhoalves]

It's about having time to grow it into something that financially rewards your honest entrepreneurship before someone else can take it away from you. Joe Blow can start small, market locally, gradually gain repute and $$$, allowing him to iteratively invest in larger scale marketing, manufacturing and distribution. Or, what frankly makes more sense, is he can eventually appeal to the resources of a large company to reach broad market visibility by selling his idea.

That's not what happens in the real world, though.

1. His idea has to be simple enough such that he can produce with limited resources. Most of the ideas today aren't.

2. Even if he indeed owns a patent for his idea and start small, 10 other big companies will have 100 other patents that he is likely infringing to make his own product. Then they will just settle on a mediocre deal, or buy him out for pennies, or disgregard him completely and launch something that infringes his patent and let him waste money on lawyers.

Point is, patents don't protect little guys with clever ideas, at all. You're mistaken at that.

[borno]

My canon bodies with usm lenses already focus faster than my eyes do, so what's the big deal?

[v5planet]

That's not what happens in the real world, though.

1. His idea has to be simple enough such that he can produce with limited resources. Most of the ideas today aren't.

2. Even if he indeed owns a patent for his idea and start small, 10 other big companies will have 100 other patents that he is likely infringing to make his own product. Then they will just settle on a mediocre deal, or buy him out for pennies, or disgregard him completely and launch something that infringes his patent and let him waste money on lawyers.

Point is, patents don't protect little guys with clever ideas, at all. You're mistaken at that.

I'm not sure exactly what you're advocating then. How does a system with no legal protection for ideas facilitate innovation? It encourages further consolidation of power in megacorporations because you cannot compete with their throughput or market visibility. If you own nothing you create, what incentive do you have to even bother, knowing you can't win on speed or volume? I think this binary proposal of NO PATENTS vs PATENTS THE WAY THEY ARE NOW is a false dichotomy. Patent reform with smarter, fairer laws, and reasonable lengths of exclusive ownership is much better than tossing it all to the wind and hoping anarchy rewards people more fairly than a currently-broken-and-corrupted system.

[Brangdon]

in reading the article, and thinking about the weight of lens elements, i doubt this will ever make it into a DSLR, the reason is the energy requirement to move the considerable mass of a lens element the distance required to focus, while it may be possible the battery and torque requirements will certainly slow things down.

It seems to me the technique will work in a DSLR. It may not be as fast as 10ms, but it could be as fast as phase detection if not faster. It looks like it would be more versatile than phase detection.

However, there isn't much benefit in a DSLR because you'd be using two sets of sensors. One when the mirror is up to take the picture, and the other when the mirror is down to focus. Unless you have a semi-transparent mirror so the imaging sensor can see well enough to focus even with the mirror down. I think we'll always want the OVF to be in focus so we can't wait until the mirror goes up to start focussing.

It would surely be a major benefit for mirrorless cameras, and DSLRs in "Live View" mode. I expect the 10ms figure was for light-weight lens systems such as found in mobile phones. I'm not sure this should be patentable, since it seems to be primarily a piece of mathematics and maths isn't patentable, but if it is, the patent should be very valuable.