My apologies - I am not well versed with the US patent process but I thought that the detailed description saying:
"Described herein are systems and methods for cartoon face generation. In one implementation, an exemplary system generates a cartoon face from an original image, such as a photo that portrays a user's face. The style of cartoon face resembles the likeness of the person portrayed in the original photo more than cartoons generated by conventional vector-based cartooning techniques. The cartoon faces thus achieved render an attractive facial appearance and thus have wide applicability in art, gaming, and messaging applications in which a cartoon, avatar, or action figure is desired that captures the user's appearance with a pleasing degree of realism but without exaggerated comedy or caricature. For example, a user can insert a cartoon or graphic of the user's own face into a game or an instant messaging forum. The exemplary system achieves pleasing cartoon faces by applying pixel-based methods separately to some parts of the cartooning process. "
pretty much described a method of generating a cartoon image from a picture - hence the suggestion of prior art.
I am sure I have seen those "photographic" type booths in service stations that do cartoony caricatures of people - are these not prior art? and what about avatars for forums - does Microsoft now own the patent on these? What about services like befunky? http://www.befunky.com are they now going to have to pay MS a license fee for continuing to provide services?
How about people on holiday who want to be able to phone without running up huge hotel bills. They could be dispensed from vending machines at the airport, no need to worry about converting your existing phone to international, or buying expensive triband gear to visit the states. If these came out at sub £20 and had a fortnights worth of battery life - I'd have one every time I visited anywhere.
Surely it is in the suffix.... They may/may not have innovated - past tense The are/are not innovative - what they are/are not doing NOW... ie: at some point in M$ past they may/may not have been innovative - Past conditional.
Isn't this exactly what they are proposing - take a story/myth that has exists in one form or another to everyone on the planet, deisplay it as plain text in 1000 languages - throw in a few more pieces of information, simmer over a low heat for 10K yrs - presto instant rosetta stone.
I was at a Norman re-enactment society event (sig other is a member) last year, and they had a smith who was making a bollock dagger (fairly short with carved horn handle in the shape of knackers) from a broken sword, he surmised that these daggers were where the term "to get a bollocking" comes from..... apologies if you don't know what a bollock is....
With water on Mars and Interstella sugar, now all we need to is discover tea plantations on Europa and we are all set for the first hyper galactic transport cafe.
I wonder if anyone has noticed the similarity between her issues and IP rights whithin IT/commercial industry. If I take a permenant job or a contract, the chances are that anything I create whilst under contract belongs to my employer - I have very little right to innovate for myself - is this not the same as artists creating music whilst under contract to a label?
If I have read the article correctly, DotTV have paid $50M for the rights for 10 years, this means the the Tuvaluese (?) are prepared to let DotTV pay for all the marketing, sell all the domain names, put all the public awareness work in, and then can sell th.TV TLD to whomsoever they want once the profile has been raised.
I thought it was quite strange that the discrimination was made in the article between the "skilled professionals" and the "six women", I hope this was due to poor grammar.
On the contrary I would sepculate that the offender here is Messrs Vatis and Bennett, who seem intent on spreading FUD, presumably so that further breaches of citizens privacy can be passed off in the name of "National Security"..
Slashdot Mirror
I was sure that said vrArse - I was wondering about Uber realistic toileting apps.....
My apologies - I am not well versed with the US patent process but I thought that the detailed description saying:
"Described herein are systems and methods for cartoon face generation. In one implementation, an exemplary system generates a cartoon face from an original image, such as a photo that portrays a user's face. The style of cartoon face resembles the likeness of the person portrayed in the original photo more than cartoons generated by conventional vector-based cartooning techniques. The cartoon faces thus achieved render an attractive facial appearance and thus have wide applicability in art, gaming, and messaging applications in which a cartoon, avatar, or action figure is desired that captures the user's appearance with a pleasing degree of realism but without exaggerated comedy or caricature. For example, a user can insert a cartoon or graphic of the user's own face into a game or an instant messaging forum. The exemplary system achieves pleasing cartoon faces by applying pixel-based methods separately to some parts of the cartooning process. "
pretty much described a method of generating a cartoon image from a picture - hence the suggestion of prior art.
I am sure I have seen those "photographic" type booths in service stations that do cartoony caricatures of people - are these not prior art? and what about avatars for forums - does Microsoft now own the patent on these? What about services like befunky? http://www.befunky.com are they now going to have to pay MS a license fee for continuing to provide services?
How about people on holiday who want to be able to phone without running up huge hotel bills. They could be dispensed from vending machines at the airport, no need to worry about converting your existing phone to international, or buying expensive triband gear to visit the states. If these came out at sub £20 and had a fortnights worth of battery life - I'd have one every time I visited anywhere.
Does this mean that you would consent to your employer doing automatic drug/health scans on your faeces because you are using a company toilet?
It's that really nasty bright light out in the blue room. try and avoid it if you can....
i don't know - think about the Hawkmen in Flash Gordon......
The head of the pin is the end with the angels dancing on it......
Think so.... Cannae remeber - have to go dig them out...
It brings tears to my eyes to imagine something that puts one foot 13' away from the other at 25 mph.......
Surely it is in the suffix.... They may/may not have innovated - past tense The are/are not innovative - what they are /are not doing NOW... ie: at some point in M$ past they may/may not have been innovative - Past conditional.
Isn't this exactly what they are proposing - take a story/myth that has exists in one form or another to everyone on the planet, deisplay it as plain text in 1000 languages - throw in a few more pieces of information, simmer over a low heat for 10K yrs - presto instant rosetta stone.
I was at a Norman re-enactment society event (sig other is a member) last year, and they had a smith who was making a bollock dagger (fairly short with carved horn handle in the shape of knackers) from a broken sword, he surmised that these daggers were where the term "to get a bollocking" comes from..... apologies if you don't know what a bollock is....
The U stands for User - see RFC1700.
With water on Mars and Interstella sugar, now all we need to is discover tea plantations on Europa and we are all set for the first hyper galactic transport cafe.
my website showing hot venusian love goddesses.
I wonder if anyone has noticed the similarity between her issues and IP rights whithin IT/commercial industry. If I take a permenant job or a contract, the chances are that anything I create whilst under contract belongs to my employer - I have very little right to innovate for myself - is this not the same as artists creating music whilst under contract to a label?
This would be great if some of the older infocom titlas (Hitchhikers etc) could be licensed - now where did I put that towel?
Isn't this sort of like Micros~1 issuing a fix for win2K that stops you running an executable in case it causes a GPF?
If I have read the article correctly, DotTV have paid $50M for the rights for 10 years, this means the the Tuvaluese (?) are prepared to let DotTV pay for all the marketing, sell all the domain names, put all the public awareness work in, and then can sell th .TV TLD to whomsoever they want once the profile has been raised.
Maybe whoever stole it has a couple of laptops recently lost in London to decrypt.
Hmmm - Thinks........
Technically we kicked our own arses back across the pond - and at least we only have to get onto one knee when meeting our head of state....
I thought it was quite strange that the discrimination was made in the article between the "skilled professionals" and the "six women", I hope this was due to poor grammar.
best bit of advice I ever received was from a box of matches:-
"Keep dry and away from children."
On the contrary I would sepculate that the offender here is Messrs Vatis and Bennett, who seem intent on spreading FUD, presumably so that further breaches of citizens privacy can be passed off in the name of "National Security"..