Kodak wins round in Apple patent brawl

Me thinks Kodak pre-dated them as well as being bl**dy obvious.

>The first patent (filed in 1996) describes using the same memory for unprocessed and processed images (i.e. raw sensor data, and jpegs). This is as opposed to having separate dedicated memory (usually as part of the sensor chip) to store the unprocessed images. The main thrust of the claim was that the unified system could better support features such as burst-mode, since it did not have a limited space for unprocessed image data. Additionally, the system could process images at the same time as taking new ones.

From my reading of the patent they have patented the idea of taking the data from the sensor into DRAM through whatever means possible( CPU, DMA, ESP ) and then the CPU processing it there before passing it on to the non volatile storage device. The process of data comming from one peripheral device be it a CMOS sensor or a 485 transceiver and being placed in a buffer in the processors own memory space before being sent on to another peripher ( the storage device ) must be as old as the hills, at least as old as using tape recorders to record data anyway. In addition Kodak relased the DCS420 in 1994 two years prior to the patent, this used 8MB of DRAM for storage so it could take multiple pictures without waiting for the previous image to be stored.

So are Apple just patenting the procesing of the data by the CPU ( big woopy doo ) or are they patenting the use of a ram disk. None of which I can see as particularly ground breaking even in 1996. It seems just another case of patenting the patently obvious, lets take how everybody normally does stuff ( peripherals/cpu/memory ) add on a differnt peripheral that seems to be taking off ( a digital sensor) and saying we have created somethin novel and amazing. Now if they had use the sensors memory to perform the task by somehow having more memory on the sensor than the sesor pixels themselves it might have been a more worthwhile patent.

More like:

Under funded: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/01/director-kappos-on-the-usptos-lack-of-funding.html

Under staffed: http://www.dynamicpatents.com/2009/03/uspto-faces-hiring-freeze-and-budget-problems/

and under pressure: http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/content/apr2009/id2009048_138177.htm

Basically, there's too few people reviewing too many patents, under pressure to process them as quickly as possible, so rubber stamping is endemic.

The corporations know this and aggravate the problem by filing as many patents as possible, regardless of validity, to see what they can slip through, and then some sell off the more worthless/outlandish ones to patent trolls making a quick buck for little investment.

And STILL the push for reforms is stymied... gee, I wonder why?

/BS BTW, it looks my idea for using Elizabethan English in a format for plays and/or performances distributed by electronic means will be approved for a patent.

Yowzaa! I'll own the rights to all performances of Shakespeare's works in any media except live performances done without a sound system! /BS*

*yes, that's a Bull shit tag, I'm not that Evil... yet.