Saving the film industry, from piracy.

[Joe Winchester]

I don't understand... are you trying to stop people from pirating your work or major studio films?

[Sharyn Ferrick]

Under 35 U.S.C. Section 102(b), a U.S. patent application must be filed within one year of the publication of an invention. This is how those publications of inventions looking for investors work. There is an easier first step now in the US called filing a Provisional patent, you still have to file the full application within the year, but the preliminary is realtively inexpensive and is no were near as comprehensive as a full filing.
So many people now come up with the invention, file a provisional patent application, publish and search for investors, and have a year
Sharyn

[Peter Ferling]

Correct. I have a background in engineering and product development. I just wrapped up three projects this year in Patent training. Public disclosure, such as e-mail ("evidence"-mail), and forums (like this), can only hurt you. Once something is public knowledge, it cannot be patented. The idea is the exchange of knowledge for the exclusive rights to own/use/license for a defined period.

The idea of making movies non-filmable may not be novel or new. However, the actual application and technique may be worthy of an application. You can't patent a "tire", but you can patent a tread design for a tire. I would be careful about discussing this further until you see legal counsel.

[Wayne Morellini]

Originally Posted by Glenn Chan

1- One problem with making the screen unfilmable is that the technology has to be applied to EVERY screen.

This is the same as what is happening with he present HD protection mechanisms and HDMI. Unless a screen supports it it cannot display it, and most screens are made to support it. So, it is basically what is already being done for present systems.

As, has been explained, about flicker, epilepsy etc, that this is compensated for and quality maintained, by higher refresh rates (and internal screen buffers etc). In the end tit should look almost flawless, but not to a camera, introducing image tearing, missing portions, flicker and other undesirable effects.

2- It's not a big deal if people are pirating cams... cams are low quality, and aren't a very good "product". Many people would much prefer a higher quality product, even if it costs several dollars more.

By adjusting controls on the display, and cameras, it is possible to get it's latitude to match that of the camera, and some HD and SHD, cameras are much better than camcorders. So, almost perfect reproduction is available this way.

As mentioned above, the new protection schemes have not yet been ripped, and if they do their job properly it won't be for many years. By then, if they use an overlapping scheme, like I suggested, they can parallel use a couple of replacement protection schemes, so that security of latest films will hardly ever get compromised. When DVD's are replaced, this process can start, but has already for HD disks. With leaks, it is upto the industry to close that hole.

Better value, we have $30 DVD players, $9 six month, year old, feature releases. What more do we want? I agree with the sentiment, but this is just another part of the coin. Computational power is in the middle of taking a huge performance leaf from slow mass RISC processor arrays (low powered cheap price) the extra effective cost for the future is very low in volume.

[Wayne Morellini]

Originally Posted by Peter Ferling

Correct. I have a background in engineering and product development. I just wrapped up three projects this year in Patent training. Public disclosure, such as e-mail ("evidence"-mail), and forums (like this), can only hurt you. Once something is public knowledge, it cannot be patented. The idea is the exchange of knowledge for the exclusive rights to own/use/license for a defined period.

The idea of making movies non-filmable may not be novel or new. However, the actual application and technique may be worthy of an application. You can't patent a "tire", but you can patent a tread design for a tire. I would be careful about discussing this further until you see legal counsel.

There is no money to do so, and I am working on much more important long term products (that nobody gets to see fro that reason). If anybody wants to step up great, but otherwise, it doesn't matter too much, as it would be a substantial obstacle to development of existing plans. Given the in depth knowledge, I can roll out credible solutions, so it is no great loss unless it was the opportunity I should take etc.

Maybe I should write next time ".. and I don't want to patent it at all, I give up all rights, just tell me which industry group might be interested in this for me to submit it to". ;). There seems to be a concentration on patents or up playing impossibilities (not a good way to find solutions) instead. Anyway, I give up, there is only so much time to spend on negativity about good/potentially free ideas, that could be used on generating income elsewhere.


I think that the patent law has to change fundamentally, to a free registration list. That the nature of the patent protection itself has to change etc. At the moment, with the extra items that previously were unpatentable (and of nuisance value to other businesses) and the level of abuse that has been growing in the misuse of patents, and invalid patents that are not properly verified before granting. The patent system is reaching a crises point for those that cannot afford to work through it's defectiveness.

If I am not incorrect, doesn't provisional give you an greatly reduce protection period of protection and a reduced number of claims etc, I think it does here.