Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • I've been waiting for this result for a long time - great news!!
    by grokcodec
  • If it was filed in 2008, wouldn't the patent have expired in 2028 anyway? Or am I missing something?
    by jujube3
  • > One possibility the abolition of the license fees reportedly due to Red from users of Apple’s ProRes RAW codec.

    This would be great but I’m not going to hold my breath.

    by dabinat
  • This is a terrible patent (it's basically a list of features) and unfortunately Red was able to milk it for almost 20 years.
    by wmf
  • Can somebody give a ELI5 of what "RAW video" actually is? I was always under the impression that it's just a dump of the "raw" uncompressed and uncorrected data coming from the sensors, meaning it's hardware dependent and unstandardized, and Wikipedia seems to agree: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

    So what exactly is patentable here? Or is this the bone of contention here?

    by decimalenough
  • Patents last at most 20 years. So the troll got 18 years out of it, and a great expense to the public and many companies involved fighting it. Trolls and lawyers win again. Everyone else loses.
    by panny
  • In the past 15 years, I have purchased five Lumix cameras including the new L10 (which I have yet to receive). I like their cameras a lot. The dedication to pursue this battle is another reason I am certain to buy more.
    by Wistar
  • Thank god. The actual patent (roughly; I researched it myself, but a few years ago so memory fuzzy) involves compressing frames/video before debayering which makes the streams more easily compressible; instead of after debayering, and as part of a camera (internal RAW). Yeah.
    by dannyw

Explore Birbla archives