DSLR Megapixels

In article ,
(Michael Benveniste) wrote:

Steve Hix wrote in message
...

These guys, as Silicon Film or Imagek or whatever else, certainly spent
a long time emitting a lot of smoke. One wonders how they managed to get
funding for so long with so little to show for it.

They were granted at least one patent, U.S. Patent Number 6,370,339
for the technology. Some of the claims in that patent include
digital backs. So at least in theory, anyone wishing to market
such a back in the United States would either have to license the
technology from the patent holder or be exposed to an infringement
action.

Whether the patent would survive a court challenge is unclear. AFAIK,
no one has tried.

Are they going after Leica? (Leica Digital-Modul-R for R8 and R9 bodies.)

(Michael Benveniste) wrote in
om:

They were granted at least one patent, U.S. Patent Number 6,370,339
for the technology. Some of the claims in that patent include
digital backs. So at least in theory, anyone wishing to market
such a back in the United States would either have to license the
technology from the patent holder or be exposed to an infringement
action.

Whether the patent would survive a court challenge is unclear. AFAIK,
no one has tried.

They have been granted three patents

1 6,147,389 Image sensor package with image plane reference
(Jul 27, 1999)
A mounting method for image sensors that makes the alignment easy.
This patent looks by far too simple to be of any value. This does
not have anything specific to do with E-film. Any digital camera
could infringe on this IMHO. But - I find this to be simple
engeneer work. Not worthy a patent.

2 6,370,339 System and method for operating an electronic film camera
(Nov 12, 1999)
This patent describes a rather complex system where you use
a acoustic/magnetic/optic sensor for trying to find out the
state of the camera. This is totally unneccessary if you have
a camera body that is prepared with a shutter info coupling
to the back. But - if you want to make a general back for
cameras that are not prepared for this - you probably have
to license it. This patent looks valid to me. Is the Leica
camera prepared for backs? In that case - niemas problemas.

3 6,393,224 E-film cartridge with sensor avoidance feature
(Jul 14, 2000)
This patent describes how to avoid DX coding when you use
an E-film cartridge. This is simple engeneer work and nothing
you are supposed to patent. Why US patent office has even
bothered is a mystery to me.



/Roland

(Michael Benveniste) wrote in
om:

They were granted at least one patent, U.S. Patent Number 6,370,339
for the technology. Some of the claims in that patent include
digital backs. So at least in theory, anyone wishing to market
such a back in the United States would either have to license the
technology from the patent holder or be exposed to an infringement
action.

Whether the patent would survive a court challenge is unclear. AFAIK,
no one has tried.

They have been granted three patents

1 6,147,389 Image sensor package with image plane reference
(Jul 27, 1999)
A mounting method for image sensors that makes the alignment easy.
This patent looks by far too simple to be of any value. This does
not have anything specific to do with E-film. Any digital camera
could infringe on this IMHO. But - I find this to be simple
engeneer work. Not worthy a patent.

2 6,370,339 System and method for operating an electronic film camera
(Nov 12, 1999)
This patent describes a rather complex system where you use
a acoustic/magnetic/optic sensor for trying to find out the
state of the camera. This is totally unneccessary if you have
a camera body that is prepared with a shutter info coupling
to the back. But - if you want to make a general back for
cameras that are not prepared for this - you probably have
to license it. This patent looks valid to me. Is the Leica
camera prepared for backs? In that case - niemas problemas.

3 6,393,224 E-film cartridge with sensor avoidance feature
(Jul 14, 2000)
This patent describes how to avoid DX coding when you use
an E-film cartridge. This is simple engeneer work and nothing
you are supposed to patent. Why US patent office has even
bothered is a mystery to me.



/Roland

Roland Karlsson wrote:

Why US patent office has even bothered is a mystery to me.

The procedures that actually take place during the granting of a US
patent have become bizarrely lax in many cases. It seems nobody at
the US patent office is awake anymore. There are a lot of loopholes
in the procedures now, and companies take advantage of them whenever
possible. Searches for prior art are rarely thorough. It's almost
as if the granting of a patent is like how some companies release
software these days... "well, let the users find the bugs". In
the case of patents it's "well, let the litigators sort it out".
Sounds good in theory, but it screws the little guys who can't
afford to go through patent litigation.

BJJB

Roland Karlsson wrote:

Why US patent office has even bothered is a mystery to me.

The procedures that actually take place during the granting of a US
patent have become bizarrely lax in many cases. It seems nobody at
the US patent office is awake anymore. There are a lot of loopholes
in the procedures now, and companies take advantage of them whenever
possible. Searches for prior art are rarely thorough. It's almost
as if the granting of a patent is like how some companies release
software these days... "well, let the users find the bugs". In
the case of patents it's "well, let the litigators sort it out".
Sounds good in theory, but it screws the little guys who can't
afford to go through patent litigation.

BJJB

BillyJoeJimBob wrote in news:40FEEF66.16E4
@nowhere.antispam.com:

Why US patent office has even bothered is a mystery to me.

The procedures that actually take place during the granting of a US
patent have become bizarrely lax in many cases. It seems nobody at
the US patent office is awake anymore. There are a lot of loopholes
in the procedures now, and companies take advantage of them whenever
possible. Searches for prior art are rarely thorough. It's almost
as if the granting of a patent is like how some companies release
software these days... "well, let the users find the bugs". In
the case of patents it's "well, let the litigators sort it out".
Sounds good in theory, but it screws the little guys who can't
afford to go through patent litigation.


Exactly!

Patents was originally a method for avoiding technical
company secrets. Before patents, industry was severely
hindered in its development because of those secrets.

But now - almost everything is patented at least twice.
So - no matter what you plan to do - if someone with the
right patent finds out - he can stop you if he is richer.
You don't dare to take a fight because you cannot afford
it - even if the patent is totally worthless.

The little guys are the losers in such a system. The big
guys are the winners.

In some cases some little guy with a patent has get rich
because of a big guy paying for using the patent though.
But - that was not the original intention with patents.


/Roland

BillyJoeJimBob wrote in news:40FEEF66.16E4
@nowhere.antispam.com:

Why US patent office has even bothered is a mystery to me.

The procedures that actually take place during the granting of a US
patent have become bizarrely lax in many cases. It seems nobody at
the US patent office is awake anymore. There are a lot of loopholes
in the procedures now, and companies take advantage of them whenever
possible. Searches for prior art are rarely thorough. It's almost
as if the granting of a patent is like how some companies release
software these days... "well, let the users find the bugs". In
the case of patents it's "well, let the litigators sort it out".
Sounds good in theory, but it screws the little guys who can't
afford to go through patent litigation.


Exactly!

Patents was originally a method for avoiding technical
company secrets. Before patents, industry was severely
hindered in its development because of those secrets.

But now - almost everything is patented at least twice.
So - no matter what you plan to do - if someone with the
right patent finds out - he can stop you if he is richer.
You don't dare to take a fight because you cannot afford
it - even if the patent is totally worthless.

The little guys are the losers in such a system. The big
guys are the winners.

In some cases some little guy with a patent has get rich
because of a big guy paying for using the patent though.
But - that was not the original intention with patents.


/Roland