Canon purchases 24p license - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > The DV Info Network > Digital Video Industry News

Digital Video Industry News
Events, press releases, bulletins and dispatches from the DV world at large.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 30th, 2006, 10:30 AM   #16
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,719
Does JVC have the license for the HD100?
Thomas Smet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2006, 10:46 AM   #17
Major Player
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 612
I don't think so, I think they came up with their own style of 24p that was more or less the same thing, but HDV-ized. But I'm not sure, anybody wish to clarify?
__________________
"Babs Do or Babs Do not, there is no try." - Zack Birlew
www.BabsDoProductions.com
Zack Birlew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2006, 11:52 AM   #18
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Illinois
Posts: 888
well maybe Canon came up with their own style of 24p for the XL2. Probably just as easy to pay the guy for a license.

Maybe Canon is really going to surprise everyone with the next camera. The rebates end today on the GL2 etc.
Bob Zimmerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2006, 12:19 PM   #19
Obstreperous Rex
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: San Marcos, TX
Posts: 26,900
Images: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Zimmerman
well maybe Canon came up with their own style of 24p for the XL2.
Nope, they got it from Panasonic. The XL2 and the DVX100 share the exact same 24P implementation. Technologies are traded and licensed among manufacturers all the time... Canon's Frame mode originally came from Panasonic as well (although they've improved on it since acquiring it in 1997).
__________________
CH

Search DV Info Net | DV Info Net Sponsors | A Decade (+5) of DVi | ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!
Chris Hurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2006, 12:22 PM   #20
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Illinois
Posts: 888
ok but I take it is not the same thing that the 24p license lets you use. Maybe they won't even use it. Just avoiding court problems. The license is probably cheaper than lawyers!!
Bob Zimmerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2006, 12:41 PM   #21
Obstreperous Rex
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: San Marcos, TX
Posts: 26,900
Images: 513
No argument there -- you're probably right! No doubt the license is much more affordable than litigation.
__________________
CH

Search DV Info Net | DV Info Net Sponsors | A Decade (+5) of DVi | ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!
Chris Hurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30th, 2006, 01:44 PM   #22
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: DFW area, TX
Posts: 6,108
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Hurd
Nope, they got it from Panasonic. The XL2 and the DVX100 share the exact same 24P implementation. Technologies are traded and licensed among manufacturers all the time... Canon's Frame mode originally came from Panasonic as well (although they've improved on it since acquiring it in 1997).
Especially in Japan. I was told years ago by an engineer in our semiconductor company that Japan shares their trade secrets with each other but then they compete in the marketing of their respective product offerings.

-gb-
Greg Boston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2006, 04:52 AM   #23
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,761
This is a common problem is the patent system, which system often gets exploited legally, and illegally, with relatively little done to stop it, and stream line it for business. How "obvious" is it, to catch any frame rate alone 24p. I would like to know how valid it is, maybe it is something unique. Unfortunately, rather than doing their job, various patent offices have come down to requiring a costly process to catch mistaken patents after they have been issued, a long and costly one. I don't know why companies just keep on paying rather than ganging up and invalidating patents, it can be cheaper in the long run and would reduce the amount of cases. To reduce inducement to deliberately falsely patent and exploit, there needs to be jail, automatic search for bad patents, suspension on suspicion where there is obvious proof, with open use in the mean time (and post restoration of royalties if proven valid) and all future patents involving such a person thoroughly examined and proven (at extra cost in deliberate cases).
Wayne Morellini is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2006, 02:22 PM   #24
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,781
I'm reasonably familiar with Faber, having met him at his facility when I had various projects processed through Filmlook in the 90's. His system for converting 60i footage to 24p may now seem like not such a big deal as it can be had via shareware plugins, but at the time it was pretty revolutionary. Being granted a patent on it meant that he not only had something that worked, he was smart enough to have the patent worded in such a way that it protected his invention. I don't know if he built on other people's work to create the process, but let's remember that Edison did exactly that for certain of his inventions and he is still celebrated to this day--it's part of the process.

There are numerous aspects of the camera manufacturing process that have patents held on them by different manufacturers and the others pay licensing fees to incorporate. Had Sony patented the 24p process, Panasonic, JVC and now Canon would be paying them for the license, and would this same personal attack be taking place? I don't know the particulars about allegations of "blackmail and illegal activity", but I do know that Faber had a product that worked and worked well, and is now reaping the rewards of having foresight to go for his patent on it--it's not like he scammed a patent on a theoretical concept that he hadn't even gotten to work.

Guess what I'm saying is: this is the American Dream; make smart business moves and make your bundle. He has every right to protect his patent and I'm sure it's a long and painful process to be able to fight against the legal arms of massive corporations for this.

But I am open to hearing more substantiation of why he is being touted as a bad guy in this.
__________________
Charles Papert
www.charlespapert.com
Charles Papert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2006, 04:59 PM   #25
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Cedar Park, Texas
Posts: 182
Patents are almost universally rejected by the patent office. It often takes several rounds of "explaining" a patent to the patent office before a patent is issued. This often takes two to four years of proving to the patent office that your idea is unique.

Patents are only as good as they hold up in court. So if the patent on 24P was not valid, I'm sure that any one of the companies we're talking about would not hesitate to challenge the patent. All of these companies have patent lawers that would love to prove their worth by not paying a licensing fee. Lawyers from each of the companies mentioned have examined the patent and weighed "how good" the patent is. Just the fact that all of these companies are agreeing to pay as opposed to challenge is one sure sign that the patent is probably a valid one.

It seems that every company that has to pay a license to a patent holder thinks they are being blackmailed. Our patent system is currently under attack (against the small entrepreneur and for large corporations). If patents loose their effectiveness, only large corporations will invent new things and profiting from your ability to come up with new ideas will go away.
__________________
- Jesse
XL2 - Vegas - DVDA - Sound Forge - Acid Pro - Cubase SX 3
Jesse Redman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2006, 05:42 PM   #26
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Illinois
Posts: 888
Very good point Jesse.
Bob Zimmerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 1st, 2006, 07:16 PM   #27
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 4,750
Quote:
This is a common problem is the patent system, which system often gets exploited legally, and illegally, with relatively little done to stop it, and stream line it for business.
Instead of illegal, don't you mean it's immoral or shouldn't be legal? I don't see how you could exploit the patent system illegally. Wouldn't the law (whether or not you consider it moral or just) be on your side?

2- In my opinion (what shouldn't be legal, not legal advice standpoint), a patent for 24p acquisition is frivolous and shouldn't be allowed. Specific algorithms for 60i-->24p conversion would be something that should be patented... but not 24p acquisition. I mean, film cameras already do 24p acquisition...

3- (Speculation) If you are the patent holder in this case, you don't have to sue the 'infringing' company right away. From a real world / business standpoint, you'd wait until the infringing company has generated significant revenue... therefore the award for damages would be higher.

The reason the 'infringing' company doesn't want to get into a lawsuit is because:
A- The court might issue an injunction to stop sales of the infringing product.
B- The patent-holding company has a small chance of winning. So they might score a home run and win a fairly substantial settlement.
C- Even if they lose, they have legal fees to pay for.
So it could be cheaper for them to pay for a license instead of getting into a lawsuit.

But again, this is just speculation...
Glenn Chan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2006, 03:10 AM   #28
Trustee
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malvern UK
Posts: 1,931
What I find odd though is that Fabers original software converted 60i to 24p. How does a patent like that affect a camera that has a true progressive scan CCD or CMOS and records to solid state or other non-tape format in true progressive scan? I can't see how his patent could cover that. Yet it has been mentioned on oither sites that Panasonic had to pay him when they developed the Varicam which doesn't have any form of interlace conversion in sight. Unless there is something more going on when it lays the information down to tape?
Simon Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2006, 08:55 AM   #29
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Illinois
Posts: 888
He must have it worded pretty darn good. Smart guy. Good lawyer too.
Bob Zimmerman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old July 2nd, 2006, 01:50 PM   #30
Wrangler
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 6,781
Probably the most relevant thing about all this is that the original patent is only going to be in effect for a few more years, and thus all of these licenses will expire at that time. Unless his later patents were also cleverly worded enough to protect the 24p concept.
__________________
Charles Papert
www.charlespapert.com
Charles Papert is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > The DV Info Network > Digital Video Industry News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:01 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network