Quote:
Originally posted by Gemini
I can't see how any court could ignore that fact even without examples of the end product. And it might even be possible to invalidate acacia simply because the software is/was no doubt patented to process the files period and end of sentance.
|
A good point to search, but it doesn't necessarily help provide prior art. A hammer can be used to build something or tear it down. The hammer is a tool, much like software is.
The GIF89 spec created the ability to loop together individual gif images to create animation. Software was created that used the GIF89 spec.
We believe a GIF89 file could count as prior art if the animated images were of digitized images, to create a video-effect. Whether it be 1 FPS, or 29.97 FPS, it's still "video".
But, the actual file is needed to be able to prove that this was done, despite the GIF89 specification and the software that could provide that capability, much like the hammer.
Another example, Autodesk FLI format and software, or IBM's Storyboard Plus software are software tools for creating animated presentations. Some crafty person figured out that if you put a digital image in each slide, and then played the slideshow, that it made a "video".
So just having the software that could create these files is not enough. Digital video editing from companies like Avid and Intel (plus other hardware for Amiga and Mac) existed prior to 1990. The quest is to find instances where that digitized video was shared to multiple people via BBS or FTP system.
The movie/broadcast/production industry could provide some insight, which GregB is chasing down.
Fight the Patent!