Is this what you call 100%

https://images.pinside.com/7/af/7af5f4f934e7707e7c8370992b9c53bbad2022cf/resized/large/7af5f4f934e7707e7c8370992b9c53bbad2022cf.jpg

There is an error in the last line

Just one comment to that magic method we ripped off or implemented directly using your patents: pin2dmd just applies a bit mask to a frame (or plane) and calculates a hash over the result. This is very obvious and straight forward and nothing innovative. I'm quite sure you will never get patent protection for such an easy thing outside the US. To further enlighten the interested reader, you may quote that part of your parents that describes exactly that simple principle.

Br Steve

No magic... just a lot of hard work.

To enlighten the interested reader, here's the figure directly from the patent which steve45 copied and implemented in PIN2DMD without permission. https://www.google.com/patents/US8773452

Figure2 (resized).png

This describes the frame identifer block in context of the full architecture below which yielded a novel method for real-time coloring pinball video frames that has earned three US patents both on architecture and method. Of the mutiple US patent examiners that reviewed it and searched for prior art, not one found it to be obvious when it was invented back in 2009-11. Only Steve and Joerg found it to be so, in 2016, after it was published and could be examined and copied.

Figure1 (resized).png

What the reader might find equally interesting is that the actual invention was created and refined over a two year period (2009-2011) during the creation and demonstration of our first game, Attack From Mars. PIN2DMD's "obvious" colorization method managed to be created without Steve or Joerg ever having colored a single pinball game.

I assume this is pulled out of this patent US20120190440, just to give the complete context. Not sure what exactly to read out of this figure even if I add the description from the text. But I did not even read the document, until Randy starts complaining. And I'm not sure whether if would have been helpful or confusing.

The only thing pin2dmd does is masking and hashing. so maybe we use this part.

We do not have a lookup table, nor do we have an address buffer or doing anything in parallel. And honestly: what's innovative about masking (or normalizing) a piece of data and then creating a hash or a message digest? This is so commonly used in various applications like digital signatures and many more

US20120190440_-_Google-Suche (resized).png

My previous post included a link to the entire patent, with claims and a detailed description of the invention. No need for Steve or anyone else to assume anything. It's a public document.

In case it's not clear, a hash is just a method for tagging a pinball frame, similar to assigning it a "phone number" and storing it in a table. Once the table is created you can link and store all kinds of associated information, and look it up using the hash tag.

It's quite ridiculous for Steve to state that PIN2DMD uses a mask and hash, yet doesn't have a hash table to lookup the hashed value. It's also ridiculous to claim that the hashed value isn't linked to the color information which is read from memory via an address.

Regarding serial versus parallel processing, the patent makes no such claim so this is just Steve creating smoke.

What was innovative and non-obvious about the invention is that it contributed a unique method by which monochrome pinball frames could be processed offline, identified, and associated with color information. The masking defined in the invention was needed to recognize pinball frames based on static content (like graphics) while ignoring dynamic content that could change over time (like player scores).

The method was then be repeated during game play, with the stored color data recalled to create real-time frame-by-frame colorization of the identified monochrome video. The claims in the patent (as well as the description of the invention) go into extensive detail as to how this is accomplished and provide sufficient detail to reproduce one embodiment of the invention.

Prior to this work, the only known method for colorizing pinball frames was simple grayscale-to-color mapping, similar to what existed in the Nintendo Gameboy and PinMame.

What you might also find interesting is that within a 1-2 year period, Steve not only implemented ColorDMD's invention, but also wrote the code to knock off the Run-DMD clock and PinSound. He's been a busy beaver. Yet, with all his talent, never found the time to color a single game.

The nature of a patent is that it has to be very specific and only this specific realisation is covered by it.
What you try to do is claiming that colorization in combination with pinball machines itself is protected by your patent by quoting single words like hash and mask. This wouldn´t work in front of a judge and you know that. Sadly the only alternative you see is telling lies. It seems to be the only way you are able to deal with competition. The history is full of those lies

With smartdmd you tried to claim that modified ROM images and pixels in the upper left corner are also covered by your patent because it uses tags and lookup tables.

Allow me to copy the post from PMD from here, when you tried to knock him off with your tenuous arguments
https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/pmd-smartdmd-kits-coming-soon/page/6#post-2189533
You can almost replace SmartDMD with PIN2DMD

Dear Randy,
I’ve talked with Oga and we are both in agreement. If ColorDMD and SmartDMD can’t coexist in this “cutthroat world of aftermarket pinball modding” then we’ll give our color packages away for free – this would be our gift to the pinball community. We partnered up on this project because we are likeminded pinball hobbyist and we share the same vision. If we can make a few bucks along the way in order to fund our pinball addiction - great. If we can’t, well that doesn’t change our vision.
We can either play nicely together or we’ll colorize every SAM machine for free. I’ll let you decide what PMD does moving forward. Here’s a tip – the more negative you (or your supporters) get the more I’m motivated to colorize SAM machines for free. I like money, but I value my principals more. Again, this is a hobby for us, so we have absolutely nothing to lose. Can you say the same? Maybe you should focus your time and energy on your own product, making it the best it can be instead of worrying about what we’re doing. Maybe a little completion is just what you need to step up your game. Personally, I welcome the challenge. I’m not going to out “race” you, I’m simply going to hunker down and out work you. If you’re worried about SmartDMD now, you haven’t seen anything yet. Game on…..
PS - I hope you guys have a great 2015. I'm pretty PMD will.
Regards,
Mike

The patent is defined by its claims which are required to be very specific. If you want to play games I'll cite them here. There's nothing general about them. And I'll remind you again, that prior to this work the only known method for colorizing pinball frames was simple graylevel-to-color mapping.

And the SmartDMD discussion that you're referencing was designed while Olivier (Oga) and I were exchanging emails about how to incorporate his idea of modifying game ROMs for reception by the ColorDMD using our existing hardware architecture. I still have all the emails. This was more than a year before MikeD got involved and tried to productize and sell SmartDMD.

Claim1 (resized).png
Claim10 (resized).PNG

After that great speech(PMD) did they ever release a product or even colour any games?

PMD himself did ACDC and Metallica. Shrek,POTC, Family Guy and some more where done by the community.
PMD sold the kits in his shop.

So if you want the whole story... SmartDMD was available for free long before Mike showed up.

Olivier first gave it to DMD Extender and created his own Rasberry Pi implementation after we couldn't agree on terms for its release with ColorDMD. Olivier wanted us to embed a license, and I wanted Olivier to have an OK from Stern to modify ROMs. I also told Olivier I didn't think it would be successful because of the missing byte and reduction to 16 colors at the expense of the shading. Again... I have the emails.

Monster_Bash was the first SmartDMD user to "complete a game" with it on Family Guy. This was long before Mike arrived on the scene, and he didn't distribute it or give the rights to Mike.

The Metallica and Avengers videos that Mike first showed when he announced the SmartDMD product weren't made by him at all. He had no content of his own at that time. The original Metallica was from Nerbflong who had already abandoned SmartDMD due to his frustration with the system, and had been working with ColorDMD for some time.

The Avengers video was from JF who had given up because he had run out of memory and couldn't complete it. He later contacted ColorDMD. We contracted him to redo it for the ColorDMD platform and helped him complete it. There were a lot of other projects that have been started and got stuck for the same reason... lack of memory.

Mike did a lot of work on AC/DC and Metallica but my understanding is he quit the project before finishing them. These games used boards with two ROM chips and didn't have memory problems, but there was some criticism about the missing byte (which Oga finally fixed with side-channel) and the lack of detail (due to the 16 color problem).

Mike also wasn't able to deliver a low-cost supported solution and had additional problems with creating content. His final price was similar to ColorDMD. When Mike exited, he made good on his threat and made the unfinished ROMs freely available and others added to them.

... and again you take some parts of your patent which may be more or less suitable and claim that this a legal proof for whatever kind of infringement.

Let me explain it in a very, very easy way.

ColorDMD is a petrol engine.
PIN2DMD is a diesel engine.

I don´t expect that you understand that even if you had a patent on petrol engines it never ever would cover a diesel engine. Otherwise there would be no motivation for anybody to invent something that is similar to something that already exists. You may think different but patents are not a tool to avoid competition. Competition is something that drives inventions.

Now go on copying whatever parts of your patent into this or any other thread and believe whatever suits your ego best.

Actually... it's necessity that drives inventions, not competition from copying someone else's invention.

Your "engine" is running on the same hashing and masking techniques that ColorDMD invented and patented. Unfortunately for PIN2DMD, you're missing all the additional innovations that we've come up with and bolted on to the original engine to enable us to handle all the rough roads and obstacles you have ahead.

I'll only be satisfied when you and Steve stop copying and cloning other projects without permission. Whether you acknowledge it or not, your behavior is highly destructive and demotivating for anyone to spend time and money to invent anything new for pinball or try to bring it to market.

Until then I'll continue to expose what you're about and let others decide for themselves.

As I said, I didn´t expect you to understand that diesel and a petrol engine are different despite the fact they both use a cylinder and a piston.

Sorry to say, but your personal satifaction is not really on our todo list. I think it is better you do that yourself.

What I read from that is simply: you what to use (or abuse) patents to protect your business. If one follows your argumentation you couldn't build frame detection / tagging at all. Also linking whatever information to such a frame tag should be protected by your patent? So no one could implement a hash map or binary search?

My understanding is that putting such simple operations like masking, hashing, looking up some information together should not be protectable by patents at all. The US patents laws are more like an exception here, where everything like "one-click-order" can be protected by patents. This is more an innovation killer than anything else.

But you are right: in the end anybody should form an opinion and decide for one solution or the other: either buy colorDMD as a ready to use professional product with nice colorizations or give the community project a try (or even contribute) which still has lots of DIY.

A Pin2DMD is not a copy of a PinDMD. Its all original and the name is just a coincidence.

A Go-DMD is not a copy of a Run-DMD. It's all original and the name is just a coincidence.

A Rasberry PInsound is not a copy of a PinSound. It's all original and the name (which was later changed after a trademark dispute) is just a coincidence.

A method for masking/hashing/colorizing pinball frames is not a copy of a method for masking/hashing/colorizing pinball frames. It's all original and the terminology is just a coincidence.

There's either a whole lot of coincidences or a whole lot of copying going on where you and Steve are concerned. Since I can't tell the difference between s diesel and petrol engine, I'll let people smarter than me decide and wait for your next great "invention."

I thought we were talking about colorDMD and your patents? Yes we do something similar as colorDMD does, because we are going for the same goal: colorizing pinball dmd frames. But the way we do it is different in various aspects from colorDMD: different hardware, different firmware, also different algorithms (just guessing: I never looked at a colorDMD device, I don't own one).

What you are trying to do is to suppress the use of basic building blocks like hashing or masking, just because you have a vague description in you patent.

I never claimed that go DMD isn't kind of a copy of a Run DMD. It was clearly inspired by the work of Torbjörn, which is explicitly mentioned on the goDMD site. But no one has a problem with that (except you maybe). Neither Torbjörn nor the distributor guy (don't remember the name) ever approached me. It's just an alternative project. Each has its pro's and con's, so just let the user decide, which he likes more.

Of course technically everything is different / nothing is copied: hardware is different, firmware as well and "content" anyway. So what's your point here?

Well said.

It is not considered vague in patent law. It is considered reasonably broad claim language that was considered novel and non-obvious at the time the patent application was filed. If you want to use ColorDMD's patented broad concepts for sales or use in the United States then you should consider working out an agreement for licensing. That is how patent law works.

If I invent a new pop bumper and receive a patent. Stern could go and copy it and add on features to it but they would not legally be in the right to sell it without my consent as the owner of the broader patent.

Licensing and sharing agreements are huge factors in the promotion of innovation.
Stealing does not help promote innovation and instead suppresses the desire to create new inventions.

Really? Here's Limpan's post on the first page of his Run-DMD clock thread from two years ago.

https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/run-dmd-the-most-amazing-clock-ever-released#post-2317759

It's not hashing that is patented... it's the method of using that existing tool in a novel **process** to solve a specific challenge. It's the idea of using it in this manner.

Lookups and hashing are not novel - using them within a specific process to address the problem of how to identify and separate p, and replace the dynamic content is.

That is the flaw in steve's argument. Colordmd does not lay a claim to hashing - it lays claim to the solution to the specific problem. Which is patentable and has passed that check multiple times.

Here's russdx's VPForums post from December 2015, speaking out against Lucky's direct copying of his pinDMD code and integration in PIN2DMD.

http://www.vpforums.org/index.php?showtopic=32549&page=9

pindmd (resized).PNG

And here on the Go-DMD clock page is a link to "Rasberry-Pinsound". Interesting name as it was designed to replace the PinSound invention and use the same community sound files developed to support it. Had a long conversation with the founders of PinSound at TPF this year, who expressed real frustration that both their invention and name were copied.

https://go-dmd.de/produkt/raspberry-pinsound-image/

rasberrypinsound (resized).PNG

Here's Steve's own thread on Pinside openly discussing his project where he actually states that sounds can be downloaded from the PinSound forum.

https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/rebuilding-sound-for-de-jurassic-park-using-a-pi#post-3566278

Its really sad that nearly 2 years later nothing has changed. We just have another person copying copies of the original. Yet claims it was all his idea??? Very strange indeed.

And i totally agree with whats being said above about copying kills off innovation. I had quite a few visual pinball cabinet products in development at the time(2015) some if which where freaking cool but just dropped them to work on personal stuff instead.

This is a great post, I myself as a software engineer have thought, how can you patent hashing something and looking it up. I have wondered the viability of the patent. Now it is very obvious that they are infringing on the patent and those infringing are just using a lot of misinformation to try and make their case.

And who is Limpan ? Steve was talking about Torbjörn the inventor of Run-DMD and you quote a post of a run-DMD user ?

In that post he was speaking out against vpin-shop.de selling pindmd2 clones which was absolutely illegal.
As you can see here I´m neither the owner of that shop nor do I have anything to do with it
http://www.vpin-shop.de/epages/64158583.sf/de_DE/?ObjectPath=/Shops/64158583/Categories/Imprint
BTW pinDMD code was never public, so how could I possibly copy it ?

Yes, it passed because it is very specific like eg. replacing a dotmatrix display by a highres LCD display. PIN2DMD was the first controller which replaced a monochrome dotmatrix display by a color LED dotmatrix display.
So how could a patent cover something which definitely didn´t exist before ?

Funny that every time you abuse your patent to get rid of competitors, the same hand full of people show up to enforce your tenuous arguments. It is getting boring how you are desperately seeking arguments, because you don´t have real ones.
Have fun with your buddies here. This discussion is nothing but a loop and a waste of time.

The distributor for Run-DMD. Steve mentioned both Torbjörn and the "distributor guy (don't remember the name)." His name is Limpan.

There are various sources for alternative sounds, in the post I was mentioning two of them. And the pinsound creators did not create the sounds, most of them are modifications / rips from roms or created by the community. Are you really saying just because someone build a replacement soundcard for pinball machines, no one else should try something similar with a small controller or SOC like Raspi?

Again everybody can choose: buy a pinsound as a ready to use product with support for a lot of machine types and professional support or play around with some DIY project.

BTW: there's many sound card replacements out there for pinball machines with different features.

Steve

My last post was 13 days ago. I was done posting to this thread until Steve and you kicked it up again.

Because you don't understand the scope or bounds of the patent.
The actual display technology (LCD vs LED) itself is not part of the claim nor boundary of the patent. The display is defined as "later generation display" that provides either color, higher resolution, or both. The patent is about the process of the color replacement... not the screen itself. The display could bound the applicability of the patent, but they were smart enough to write it to encompass more than just the specific hardware they were building at the time.

Ahh.. we've gotten to the 'I know you are but what a I' part of the retorts. It's clear you don't even understand the points raised and are just retreating to emotional arguments and hiding under the protection of the limited applicability of US patents.

From the patent text:
6. The device of claim 1 wherein the early generation display is a dot matrix display and the later generation display is a liquid crystal display.

I´m not hiding anywhere and why should a US Patent not be applicable in the US ?

Everybody can see that the situation is not even clear for Randy himself. Here he said about SmartDMD technology (which PIN2DMD uses for Stern)

and then he said that he wanted to implement exactly that technology into ColorDMD because he did´t have it.

If the situation is as clear as you and your buddies like to believe, why don´t you use the patent to take legal action in the US instead of telling stories?

See also....
2. The device of claim 1 wherein the output graphical data defines more colors, a higher resolution or both compared to the electronic graphical data received from the electronic device.
[...]
4. The device of claim 1 wherein the later generation display is a multicolor display, a high resolution full color display, or a high resolution display.

Their patent writer was smart enough to not limit the scope to the current product implementation they were working towards.

I´m not hiding anywhere and why should a US Patent not be applicable in the US ?

Deflect... not me, what about him.... you can try to twist his story but it isn't working. You tried to use the LED display to claim it wouldn't apply (wrong). You asked a question about scope because you didn't understand the patent, it was answered with the scope of the patent... to which you again replied incorrectly by taking a snip of the patent without grasping what the other text right before it means.

This is kind of boring stuff but Joerg still doesn't understand how patent claims are constructed, refuses to consult a lawyer, and continues to misrepresent the patent. There are two types of claims: independent and dependent.

Claims 1 and 10 are independent claims and contain all the elements necessary to define the invention. If an independent claim is infringed, the patent is infringed.

Dependent claims (2-9) and (11-16), which Lucky continues to reference, may only come into play if its determined that an independent claim is invalid by virtue of being too broad. The dependent claims provide fall-back positions that further limit the scope of the independent claim.

The existence of a dependent claim implies that the independent claim is more broad. For example, dependent claim 6 which includes "lcd displays" means that the patent examiner has concluded that the independent claim covers "later generation displays" including, but not limited to "lcd displays".

For a little more color on how claims work, here's an answer from an actual patent attorney: https://www.quora.com/What-are-independent-and-dependent-claims-in-a-patent-What-is-the-significance-of-each-How-to-figure-out-whether-a-claim-is-independent-or-dependent-while-reading-a-patent

Looking good! I'll be buying one for Baywatch once it is finished being colored.

Something wrong with the bottom row it only ever appears in white?

No kidding. I wish you'd just sue someone already and stop bellyaching. What's the point of a patent if you don't enforce it by law?