Resizing video: a funny patent

[2Bdecided]

You'll enjoy this...

US patent 6727958

In a method and apparatus for displaying resized pictures on an interlaced target display system, the contents of an input video source are initially read and decoded to obtain original input picture data and title format information that indicates scan format of the original input picture data. According to the scan format of the original picture data and the identified television system specification of the interlaced target display system, a resizing operation is then performed to resize the original input picture data and obtain resized frames having a frame size sufficient for division into even and odd fields with field size characteristics that comply with the television system specification of the interlaced target display system. The resized frames are stored in a resize memory, and the resize memory is subsequently controlled to output the resized frames in the form of the even and odd fields with a timing sequence that complies with field scanning characteristics of the television system specification of the interlaced target display system.

Filed in 1999, granted in 2004.

And probably first implemented in the 1980s, if not the 1970s! ;)

If someone can spot the inventive concept that has eluded me here, please point it out!

Cheers,
David.

[neuron2]

Moved to General as it has nothing to do with Avisynth.

[JohnnyMalaria]

To spot the innovative step you have to read the specific claims rather than the general text. It may simply be a certain algorithm/hardware circuit etc etc that is patented.

The claims basically state that the invention consists of a VCD drive that is connected to a video processor that can convert NTSC, PAL and 'film' format VCD for display on an NTSC or PAL device without flicker problems, wrong aspect ratio etc.

[2Bdecided]

I read the claims. None of them enlightened me as to the innovative step. Maybe it should have been called "bleeding obvious methods for playing back VCD"!

Cheers,
David.

[noclip]

Regardless of prior art (of which a metric assload no doubt exists), this patent fails the non-obviousness test. It should never have been granted. Having said that, this is nothing we haven't seen before. Patents on double clicking, trash icons, scrollbars, tabbed interfaces, context menus, and Hello World have all been granted.

[Sharktooth]

Whenever i read or hear that word (patents) i get an allergic reaction.

[Shinigami-Sama]

Whenever i read or hear that word (patents) i get an allergic reaction.

+1

thank god we're getting close a time where its reaching critical mass...

[HyperHacker]

I wonder if I could patent the act of patenting something. :p

[JohnnyMalaria]

This patent is has a very restrictive scope - i.e., VCD.

The key part of the supposed non-obviousness is the integration of the VCD source (PAL and NTSC) and the ability to display it on any PAL or NTSC display (i.e., there is a form of frame rate conversion). The implementation of the algorithm is the supposed innovative step. You can't read each claim in isolation.

I work for a very large company that relies on intellectual property (patents or otherwise) to protect its products (quite rightly). The patents I have written require that I include statements such as "Surprisingly, we have found that...." even though it is blindingly obvious to me given my particular scientific background.

[MfA]

To spot the innovative step you have to read the specific claims rather than the general text. It may simply be a certain algorithm/hardware circuit etc etc that is patented.
Saying that we are just not versed in the arts enough to see the brilliance in the legalese claims is both a cop out to hide the completely uselessness of most patents, and not just. The inventor does have the obligation to specifically point out what the invention is in the summary, he is not supposed to give "mere generalities which would be equally applicable to numerous preceding patents". At least not in the US (quotation from the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure).

Adding "in situation X" to existing art has giving us so many wonderful internet patents, putting stuff together can be innovative ... but each individual case has to be judged on it's own merit. Obviousness is a value judgment not a legal one. Applying something to VCD rather than previous or subsequent progressive formats? Not innovative IMO.

Not that resizing to frame based size and decimating that to get the fields is worth a patent for any progressive format ...

[Doobie]

Saying that we are just not versed in the arts enough to see the brilliance in the legalese claims is both a cop out to hide the completely uselessness of most patents, and not just.

Indeed, most patents are BS and they use BS language to conceal that they're just BS. Part of any Patent reform should be a clause requiring plain English identification of the novelty, and then they can add the same old BS legalese.

Big business likes it like this. They can trade patents among themselves (the ubiquitous cross-licensing agreements) which locks out newcomers (competition) to the industry. For example, Amazon.com themselves admit that their one-click patent is BS, but that's how the game is played. Consider what happens when someone doesn't play the game, like the open-source community that doesn't get patents for their ideas, they've never made a real dent in the desktop OS market because they have no patent currency to buy into the market.