Just because a patent is alledgedly infringed doesnt mean they actively used that patent or resulting research in their development... there's always a good chance in any patent infringement that it was indepently developed, not that it matters one way or the other.
Its design grew very unambitious towards the end, its just a couple of grad's tieing up the loose ends towards their Phd's... the real work is now being done in the Aries group (http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/aries/).
You would think that array machines are especially wanted for signal processing applications, wouldnt it make more sense to dedicate more area to arithmetic in relation to the rest of the CPU for the 25X? To have most of the area dedicated to the stack which would not even be running at full speed during arithmetic operations seems like a waste.
Just get rid of the notion that it has to be 100% like a shell just with a secure communication channel... if you md5 the password locally there is no problem.
Its simple really, its the incentive "IP" gives to try to monopolize the market.
M$ doesnt let them do it, it forces them to give licenses to anything exposed by the D3D standard. The OpenGL ARB does the same for OpenGL, thats why its dying. You need a body which actually has real sway over the 3D companies to force standards to be made, left on their own it will never be in the interest of the biggest players to contribute to an open standard.
Thats why the big 3D companies still like OpenGL, they see it as a nice framework to build proprietary API's on.
Personally I think the theory of a non predetermined universe is debatable (and a theory is all its every going to be, there are no truths in fysics)... but disregarding that, randomness is easy to introduce. Thats what we have ADC's for.
The present patent term would be the equivalent of near a century when the patent system was invented IMO.
Your opinion on wether or not patents help innovation in digital tech is just that, your opinion.
IMO they only promote innovation for technology which is likely to remain undiscovered if not published or which is very costly to discover (biotech) and for a lot of patents thats just not the case.
They can do it just like some banks do for home-banking authentication, use dedicated hardware but put part of the functionality in internal RAM kept alive on battery power. The device will have to be reprogrammed at a secure location when it runs out, but with good design that will take a long time.
So not only do you have to map the IC, you have to extract contents of on-board RAM while the circuit is in operation.
Their digital right management obviously cant reside anywhere else but in the signal path, otherwise you could always release software to avoid it (a java MP3 player comes to mind).
The question then begs itself, why? Hardware copyright protection for computer software makes sense... but this is easy, unlike sound/video it can not easily be transformed. But where is there economical benefit in doing end to end digital rights management? They would no more be at risk from prosecution than sound card manufacturers... in fact making moral decisions for your customers seems counterproductive for your success.
Do they intend perhaps to become part of a closed end-to-end system of media distribution? (no software on a truly open system like the PC could ever give the guarantuees the media mogles would like) If not all they would be doing is limiting their customers choices, which benefits neither them or their customers.
As I said in the original title, which I hate wasting, you could use a LRU replacement scheme. The history would not be static, it would form its own actively maintained part of the filesystem.
Treat old versions as temporary data which can be purged at will, the more space you have the more history you keep. If it can be done with a small enough overhead it would be interesting.
Once you have the idea finding the way to implement it is the easy part, doing the implementation is most of the work. And 3dfx has promised there are ways of implementing multitexturing without infringing on their patents.
IP isnt about fairness of course, having developed something on your own does not excuse you in the eyes of the law.
Te design objective was obviously to let the watermark survive common lossy compression methods, if they hadnt achieved that they wouldnt even have held the challenge.
But even if a watermark survives a challenge like this it means diddly squat. Once you have players which recognise watermarks to decide if they will play content its far more easily defeated, you dont even have to reverse engineer... trial error methods will be feasible too, thats a lot different from having to mail in results and have them get back to you.
Periodic movement? Thats pretty far fetched, the fact that a lot of the time the camera is still helps... but still motion compensation has a lot of potential for further savings.
I say wavelets might not be best because the hard edges in the residual image do not map to hard edges in the actual image. Wavelets do a good job of minimizing the perceptual error in image compression, Im not sure if the same is true for the composite of a wavelet de-/compressed residual error image and a standard motion compensated one.
Motion compensation of the wavelet coefficients might be a better idea.
Naive motion compensation introduces a lot of hard edges. The MPEG4 standards supports wavelets for static image (texture) coding, but chooses 8*8 DCT for coding the residual error... I have read about lots of interesting ways to apply wavelets in video coding, for instance hierarchical motion estimation with complex discrete wavelet transforms, but its not going to be as easy as just taking out the DCT and pluggin in wavelets IMO.
As for 3D wavelet transforms, they encode the relation ship in time between corresponding pixels... people have claimed quite good compression with this (about the same quality at the same bitrate as broadcast quality MPEG-2) but it still lacks motion compensation.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because a patent is alledgedly infringed doesnt mean they actively used that patent or resulting research in their development... there's always a good chance in any patent infringement that it was indepently developed, not that it matters one way or the other.
The hell they arent in it for the money.
Its design grew very unambitious towards the end, its just a couple of grad's tieing up the loose ends towards their Phd's... the real work is now being done in the Aries group (http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/aries/).
You would think that array machines are especially wanted for signal processing applications, wouldnt it make more sense to dedicate more area to arithmetic in relation to the rest of the CPU for the 25X? To have most of the area dedicated to the stack which would not even be running at full speed during arithmetic operations seems like a waste.
Just get rid of the notion that it has to be 100% like a shell just with a secure communication channel... if you md5 the password locally there is no problem.
Its simple really, its the incentive "IP" gives to try to monopolize the market.
M$ doesnt let them do it, it forces them to give licenses to anything exposed by the D3D standard. The OpenGL ARB does the same for OpenGL, thats why its dying. You need a body which actually has real sway over the 3D companies to force standards to be made, left on their own it will never be in the interest of the biggest players to contribute to an open standard.
Thats why the big 3D companies still like OpenGL, they see it as a nice framework to build proprietary API's on.
Personally I think the theory of a non predetermined universe is debatable (and a theory is all its every going to be, there are no truths in fysics)... but disregarding that, randomness is easy to introduce. Thats what we have ADC's for.
Personally I think legal justice is only a rough approximate of the real thing.
Something being obvious is a hard thing to proove in court.
The present patent term would be the equivalent of near a century when the patent system was invented IMO.
Your opinion on wether or not patents help innovation in digital tech is just that, your opinion.
IMO they only promote innovation for technology which is likely to remain undiscovered if not published or which is very costly to discover (biotech) and for a lot of patents thats just not the case.
Sure if you only have a CPU, if each added module of DRAM can perform its own lookups...
They can do it just like some banks do for home-banking authentication, use dedicated hardware but put part of the functionality in internal RAM kept alive on battery power. The device will have to be reprogrammed at a secure location when it runs out, but with good design that will take a long time.
So not only do you have to map the IC, you have to extract contents of on-board RAM while the circuit is in operation.
Smart people inclined to agree WOULDNT BE READING THE DAMN ANIME CRAP!!!
Their digital right management obviously cant reside anywhere else but in the signal path, otherwise you could always release software to avoid it (a java MP3 player comes to mind).
The question then begs itself, why? Hardware copyright protection for computer software makes sense... but this is easy, unlike sound/video it can not easily be transformed. But where is there economical benefit in doing end to end digital rights management? They would no more be at risk from prosecution than sound card manufacturers... in fact making moral decisions for your customers seems counterproductive for your success.
Do they intend perhaps to become part of a closed end-to-end system of media distribution? (no software on a truly open system like the PC could ever give the guarantuees the media mogles would like) If not all they would be doing is limiting their customers choices, which benefits neither them or their customers.
As I said in the original title, which I hate wasting, you could use a LRU replacement scheme. The history would not be static, it would form its own actively maintained part of the filesystem.
Treat old versions as temporary data which can be purged at will, the more space you have the more history you keep. If it can be done with a small enough overhead it would be interesting.
Once you have the idea finding the way to implement it is the easy part, doing the implementation is most of the work. And 3dfx has promised there are ways of implementing multitexturing without infringing on their patents.
IP isnt about fairness of course, having developed something on your own does not excuse you in the eyes of the law.
Thats not the issue.
NVIDIA did not have 3dfx's patent to work with you know... so how exactly were they able to use 3dfx's research?
They redirect to their localized sites.
On both points.
Te design objective was obviously to let the watermark survive common lossy compression methods, if they hadnt achieved that they wouldnt even have held the challenge.
But even if a watermark survives a challenge like this it means diddly squat. Once you have players which recognise watermarks to decide if they will play content its far more easily defeated, you dont even have to reverse engineer... trial error methods will be feasible too, thats a lot different from having to mail in results and have them get back to you.
Since you are quick to point out IBM deserves credit also give Infineon credit where credit's due.
Didnt they have a SGI Origin 3400 behind it feeding it the data?
Nuff Said
Periodic movement? Thats pretty far fetched, the fact that a lot of the time the camera is still helps... but still motion compensation has a lot of potential for further savings.
I say wavelets might not be best because the hard edges in the residual image do not map to hard edges in the actual image. Wavelets do a good job of minimizing the perceptual error in image compression, Im not sure if the same is true for the composite of a wavelet de-/compressed residual error image and a standard motion compensated one.
Motion compensation of the wavelet coefficients might be a better idea.
a lot of work has been done.
Naive motion compensation introduces a lot of hard edges. The MPEG4 standards supports wavelets for static image (texture) coding, but chooses 8*8 DCT for coding the residual error... I have read about lots of interesting ways to apply wavelets in video coding, for instance hierarchical motion estimation with complex discrete wavelet transforms, but its not going to be as easy as just taking out the DCT and pluggin in wavelets IMO.
As for 3D wavelet transforms, they encode the relation ship in time between corresponding pixels... people have claimed quite good compression with this (about the same quality at the same bitrate as broadcast quality MPEG-2) but it still lacks motion compensation.