If we've learned anything is that governments need to be minimal and get out of the way, let corporations/investors make decisions on where to spend money. That is most efficient.
This could only hurt our competitiveness in the one industry we are the best at.
1. A method of managing image information utilizing a hand-held camera comprising the steps of: capturing raw image data representative of a subject of interest utilizing an imaging device of said hand-held camera; transmitting said raw image data to a host computer during a continuous session via a wireless link between said hand-held camera and said host computer; receiving, as an automated response by said host computer to said transmitting step, related image data at said hand-held camera during said continuous session via said wireless link; forming an image from said related image data on a display device of said hand-held camera, wherein enabling a display of said subject of interest on said display device is dependent upon operations at said host computer; and browsing stored image data that is stored in said host computer, where said browsing is controlled by operations at said hand-held camera.
but as you can see, it's very limiting - round trip of camera sending image to computer and computer processing it before sending it back for display on the camera. So an obvious workaround would be to just do half it (camera -> PC) and patent infringement avoided. This patent might have seemed useful back in '98 when processing power on a small device (like a handheld camera) was not thought of the way to go. So HP seemed to miss this important fact and could/should have realized that processors would get smaller, faster, less-power hungry. I have found this subtle but important miscalculation happens all the time. Call it a design flaw in the patent.
Here's the only Independent claim:
1. A wireless communication unit, comprising: an interface portion signally connectable to a main device, the interface portion including a connector portion having a shape that mimics a shape of a removable memory-medium-device, the connector portion being receivable by and connectable to a memory-medium-device-receiving-portion of the main device; a recording portion performing non-volatile recording; a wireless communication portion performing wireless communication; and a control portion transmitting information through the wireless communication portion to an external destination and generating a backup of the information in the recording portion, the information being inputted from the main device to the control portion through the interface portion, wherein the control portion automatically deletes the backup from the recording portion after transmission of the information in the wireless communication portion is normally terminated, when the control portion generates the backup of the information in the recording portion, wherein the wireless communication unit is a stand-alone unit.
I believe Nikon came out with wifi camera's before Cannon.
Unlike competitor products from Nikon or Kodak that have their own Wi-Fi functions, the Sony camera works with AT&T hotspots so that external access point software isn't necessary.
Useless outside of U.S. And in the U.S. limited (e.g. connecting to home wifi).
Here be Pirates.
For upload, write your emails/replies before hand (in your cabin) and have them ready to send.
Yes we all pay due to higher costs, but in many cases this all could have been avoided. I'm assuming the patent is valid and innovative.
Just follow the EU's software patent battle and you'll see who it is who simply LOVE them, and it's not small inventors or small businesses. It's the big corporations that spend more time patenting the color blue than anything else (even the corporation I work for has a team of patent lawyers that rival some entire business' staff, and the company frequently begs us for "patentable stuff" if we've seen it or made it).
1) Large corporations get patents as a protection racket to throw mud back at. Most of those patents aren't innovative. Show me some that are (...and Google patents don't really count - they innovated and just happen to have grown so fast (actually due to innovating)).
2) Explain to me why the small inventors or businesses dont' see the use in them again?
If a person or small business wants to patent something and then negotiate with a larger company to do the muscle work beyond a prototype, I have no problem with that
ahh but herein lies one of the problems - without patent protection a medium-large corporation will almost always tell the inventor to buzz off, and then depending on the usefulness of the innovation - copy&paste the idea. You'd be surprised. Remember, these are soulless corporations who's sole purpose is to maximize profits for investors - and that means reduce expenses (e.g. technology license fee's).
but I can say that if a person sits on a patent waiting for someone else to come up with it so they can sue in East Texas, that person needs shot in the eye
I believe the problem lies in that the system too heavily favors the bigger guy. To start an infringement suit you need many things - one is due diligence - big time proof that they are infringing. This is intense and can take years to collect the evidence. Remember our law - defendent is innocent. So the larger corporation will make a business decision whether its more cost-effective to negotiate and buy a license or let him drag you through court. An infringement suit is easily over $1million. Now of course, the little guy should recognize this and not be too greedy - but in this case we're talking about innovating AV software here - no trivial innovation and so probably felt it worthwhile to pursue for higher amounts.
Corporatism is to blame for small business' lack of leverage
Interesting, but how so? Corporatism is one of the factors behind Western civilization that isnt going to be easy to get rid of, how is it to blame for small business lack of leverage? Corporations can be small - even one man (owner+employee) and provides certain advantages.
this sort of patent we're discussing here is a poor example of the "little guy" trying to get leverage to bring something to market. (It reeks of troll.)
I disagree. I suspect that what happened in this case was:
all I really want is for it to be equitable, less prone to moronic patents of obvious prior art
On Slashdot we never see proper analysis of the patent claims. Others claimed things like chmod and VMS were prior art - I'm sorry but those aren't antivirus products that stop virus.
Rather than encourage development of new technologies, patents have become a way to choke the application of novel technologies in industry. So-called "patent holding companies" have become little more than extortion gangs, demanding their share of the money to which they have no right at all.
Or is it due to the fact that the large corporations completely ignore the little guy when he shows up with his innovation (e.g. years ago)?
It is common practice for these large corporations to get letters from the small inventor showing their innovations and asking for a royalty, the corporations patent counsel then thinks it over whether to
#3 has all sorts of nice tricks (like pretend to be interested and stall him, counter-sue, etc...).
In today's world the large companies have big-time advantages (leverage, afford $better lawyers,
There can be no twisted thought without a twisted molecule. -- R. W. Gerard