What else is new? [weekend digest]

Pin It

LitePanels-logo

Litepanels wins patent case, other companies must pay licensing fees in order to sell LED lights in the US. See also related posts here and here.

Sony-55-300mm-F4-6.3-lens-patent

Sony filed a patent for a 55-300mm f/4-6.3 lens designed for APS-C sensor.

yongnuo-yn500ex yongnuo-yn500exb

Yongnuo released the YN568EX - their first HSS-enabled flash (currently available on eBay).

ReallyRightStuff-Plate-for-Fuji-X-E1

Really Right Stuff plate for Fuji X-E1 now available for pre-order.

Lomography started a Kickstarter project for a smartphone film scanner that will offer a new (and cheap) way to scan and share 35mm film images.

This entry was posted in Other. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • FJoiioj

    Thanks Litepanels. I will make it a point never to buy from you.

  • pavel

    Same here, Litepanels goes right on my “do not buy from” list. Not as stupid as Apple patenting flat rectangle… but still… :(

  • http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com/ genotypewriter

    “Sony filed a patent for a 55-300mm f/4-6.3 lens designed for APS-C sensor.”

    This is the fault of people. If anyone buying an interchangeable lens camera did any sort of independent reading on the internet or at least used their brains (*gasp*) to think about things, they wouldn’t go for such junk lenses even as their first lens.

    • King of Swaziland

      Most of these lenses are decent enough for what they are. That is smallish, cheapish and light. You can get pretty darn good photos out of most of them.

      • http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com/ genotypewriter

        “You can get pretty darn good photos out of most of them.”

        I don’t know how anyone can get excited about a 55mm f/4 lens or a 300mm f/6.3 lens even they were two primes on full-frame… and this is a zoom on APS-C!

        The whole point of being able to change lenses is so that specialised lenses can be used. Now, I’m not saying that these 55-300 (or 18-300) types shouldn’t exist… I just wish more people avoided them so manufacturers would spend more time developing better (specialised) lenses.

        • AnthonyH

          That’s incredibly short-sighted. People are more likely to start off with inexpensive lenses, and most will be happy enough with them. Selling tons of these inexpensive lenses allows companies the capital to develop the specialized lenses and keeps development costs (and ultimately, your street price) lower. Duh.

          • georgeforeman

            you’re arguing with an idiot of the worst kind, a pixel-peeper cry-baby with little knowledge about photography, the good news is that he’ll most certainly say something absurd/stupid back that will amuse you. Please refer to these links of his past comments to see what i mean:
            http://photorumors.com/2012/12/07/rip-zeiss-ikon-film-rangefinder-camera/

            http://photorumors.com/2013/01/10/canon-announced-two-new-prime-cinema-lenses/

          • http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com/ genotypewriter

            The insult to me here is not what you said… it’s who you are…

          • georgeforeman

            nah i think i can live with that…and you can bet i’ll post those links whenever you start making idiotic comments/statements like these again, i think anyone who look at them links could judge for themselves if you’re BS’ing or not. Sorry but i’m not against you, i’m just against any stupid that moans and spoil a good site for others with your ads and BS. And if that makes me a troll, then so be it. I’m gonna troll the troll that is you.

          • http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com/ genotypewriter

            ahahaha I must have permanently scarred you for some slip you’ve made to hold such a long-standing grudge against me. Well don’t feel special though… better people have vowed to hate me… people who can form better arguments.

            Care to explain to everyone how I’m BS’ing? If you don’t, it still doesn’t matter… I’m not going to post links to this thread (LOL) to expose you because no one cares about some random loony like you going “the end is near” anyway :D

            Change your nickname again and come back when you’re better…

          • georgeforeman

            A quick google of the username genotypewriter revealed a man who spends his life trolling photography forums, blogs and rumorsite, the comments he made provided hours of entertainment to any person with common sense. No no no far from being scarred and holding any grudges on you i’m actually a big fan! I’ve been following you for a long time LOL.Thank you sir for all the fun and great time. And you know why i love this so much?Is that YOU CARE SO MUCH….SO MUCH….AH i really do love the internet

          • http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com/ genotypewriter

            lol… you’re no fan of mine… if you were, you’d form a considerable argument instead of what you’re doing now.

          • AnthonyH

            He did indeed amuse me. His comment was so stupid that I’m wondering whether or not he’s serving in Congress or is a game show host.

          • http://genotypewritings.blogspot.com/ genotypewriter

            Well it’s clear that you’ve been to business school… with your reading and independent thought disability :D

            “People are more likely to start off with inexpensive lenses, and most will be happy enough with them.”

            But seriously… are you for real? That’s exactly what I said in my first post.

            “Selling tons of these inexpensive lenses allows companies the capital to develop the specialized lenses and keeps development costs (and ultimately, your street price) lower. Duh.”

            *sigh* read my original post again… I’m not disputing what you’re saying… all I’m saying is smarter buyers will create a better industry.

            And there’s no explicit connection between high volume sales of these cheap lenses and the development or the price points of specialised lenses. Do Justin Bieber’s record sales lead to the popularity of opera?

          • AnthonyH

            LOL, that’s not what you wrote; you wrote that you hope people avoided them, not that they would be happy with them. You should avoid making such bald-faced lies.

            As for your insipid Justin Bieber comment, it’s worthless in an age of downloads and high-speed Internet. Records? LOL…

            Indeed, your thought process is flawed; the popularity of one entertainer is unrelated to the popularity of another, and a complete non sequitur to my point about sales.

            More correctly, sales of compact discs by a successful singer allow a recording company to take risks with other performers, issue special or limited editions, and sell CD’s with more limited audiences. Which IS precisely on point. And that is the analogy which matches up to the popularity of inexpensive consumer lenses helping to support more exotic or boutique or pro lenses.

            Your lack of logical thought amuses me.

  • King of Swaziland

    Die patent troll, die.

    Litepanels should be tarred, feathered and run out of the US on a rail (dumped in the Arctic ocean, perhaps). The patent examiner, and judges, too.

  • BdV

    May all hate campaigns against Litepanels be successful and efficient.

  • AnthonyH

    With regard to Litepanels, read the court documents. Or, if you’re a photographer, think of it this way: you take a photograph of a model after hiring her, posing her, and lighting her. Then someone else takes your photo and begins selling it and keeping the money for themselves, without paying you a licensing fee. You’d be outraged.

    In this case, it deals with some specific technologies for white, full-spectrum LEDs, thermal management, and precise color temperature. So, this isn’t for all LED lights. Most of the companies involved are already paying licensing fees, which is a pretty good indictor that they knew they had ripped off Litepanel’s intellectual work and had to do the right thing.

    • King of Swaziland

      Let me take one sentence from the almost unreadable court documents to point out the problem here. “pointing out that something was known in the art and arguing that this is obvious. This is insufficient to prove obviousness.”

      This is the VERY DEFINITION OF OBVIOUS from the US Patent Office (shortened). The fact that a tool of an ALJ can point to a court ruling in to back this up just points to the rot in the system, and the number of judges who need to find jobs that don’t involve anything more complicated than flipping burgers.

      • AnthonyH

        No, it’s not. The US Patent Office guidance is 18 pages long, so your shortening is a bit ridiculous.

        • King of Swaziland

          Only a lawyer could come up with an 18 page definition for “Obvious.” Anyone who would do so ought not be allowed near the reins of power anywhere, ever.

          The patent office “examination guidelines” published in the federal register (what I could find) is 10 pages, not 18. The basic fact statement presented to the public is a paragraph or so.

          The federal register examination guidlines, anyhow, support my contention that:

          THE FRICKIN’ LIGHT PANELS PATENTS ARE FRICKIN’ OBVIOUS AND NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED

          Do you make your living patent trolling or something? Why are you so desperate to defend a company that has patented something that a zillion people sat around thinking “I wonder when someone will come up with this thing” before Litepanels got around to patenting it?

          • AnthonyH

            As you so ably demonstrate, common sense ain’t common, and some things are only obvious after someone else does all the work, the design, and marketing. In the meantime, wipe the foam off your mouth. Must’ve touched a nerve to get you so agitated.

          • King of Swaziland

            The work, and the marketing are meaningless to obviousness. The fact that you think that putting white LEDs in a panel to mount on a camera (or anything else) is a patentworthy idea amply demonstrates which side of common sense you fall on.

            Whoever solved the problem of creating a true white LED created a patent worthy invention. Whoever crammed them into a square pattern and conned a moron of a patent examiner into granting a patent on them is pond scum.

            Patent trolls and the extensive portfolio of dubious patents that major corporations have amassed (to strangle competition) have made it near impossible for genuine inventors to create, market and profit from real inventiveness.

    • name has been picked

      Still a bum move. Think Apple suing over the use of a touch screen.

      • AnthonyH

        I agree Apple’s suit is bad, but it’s two different animals. Apple’s involved things like the interface/usability and was less about the technology. Lite panel apparently developed its own tech, so it’s not about using LEDs for lighting alone.

  • No longer Pablo Ricasso

    May the operatives and lawyers responsible for the monopoly become located in the center of scorched earth that was once a cluttered office building that had been observed in plain sight of precision photographic equipment as is attached to attack drones.

  • Back to top