Comment After much thought ... (Score 1) 392
I've read the patent and have come to the conclusion that patent should not have been awarded. Basically the concept of writing any information that overflows the primary memory (SRAM, DRAM, semiconductor memory) to a secondary memory (hard disk, tape), has been in use for probably at least 50 years. Its called virutal memory or buffering. The Pause Patent is just a specific, and non-unique, implementation of this concept for a specific purpose.
Also, I believe NASA satellite technology does everything the patent covers. Exploration satellites record video (periodic series of pictures) which are compressed and saved to a secondary memory via a primary memory, and then pull from the secondary memory for transmission while recording new images. Furthermore the process is controlled remotely. Thus I believe a good lawyer will demonstrate that the patented technology was publicly documented many years prior to the patent. (Also there have got to be similar patents going back to the '70s and early '80s for digital audio, probably by Philip's, who makes a Tivo unit.)
Furthermore, the solution to the problem is obvious to almost any person with vague computer hardware knowledge back in '92. My fellow classmates and I were writing DSP algorithms that used buffering for reverb and filtering back in 1990. We just didn't have a need to write the data to disk or control the process by remote control.
Lastly, tape delay performed the same function, via a different technology. If this patent holds, then when optical memory becomes available, can a new patent be issued on a new implementation which replaces the codec, semiconductor memory and hard disk with just holographic memory?
Also, I believe NASA satellite technology does everything the patent covers. Exploration satellites record video (periodic series of pictures) which are compressed and saved to a secondary memory via a primary memory, and then pull from the secondary memory for transmission while recording new images. Furthermore the process is controlled remotely. Thus I believe a good lawyer will demonstrate that the patented technology was publicly documented many years prior to the patent. (Also there have got to be similar patents going back to the '70s and early '80s for digital audio, probably by Philip's, who makes a Tivo unit.)
Furthermore, the solution to the problem is obvious to almost any person with vague computer hardware knowledge back in '92. My fellow classmates and I were writing DSP algorithms that used buffering for reverb and filtering back in 1990. We just didn't have a need to write the data to disk or control the process by remote control.
Lastly, tape delay performed the same function, via a different technology. If this patent holds, then when optical memory becomes available, can a new patent be issued on a new implementation which replaces the codec, semiconductor memory and hard disk with just holographic memory?
