- Edited
Seagull I don't want to be the parade pisser, but I don't think this is enough for legal action. The writing of patents, and the granting of patents is not rigorous. I could patent a necktie for aliens, doesn't mean they are real. This stuff about flicker perception is inconsequential, it is merely background context for the invention itself.
Fair enough, however we know that Apple are using temporal dithering on AppleOS so this patent may have useful information on how it is performed.
Seagull The first patent mentions dithering may cause discomfort, but in no way proves it.
It stipulates the conditions in which discomfort could be caused. It's difficult to conclude that is proof when only a small minority are affected by dithering anyway, so it's going to be subjective.
If the pixels displayed at the same screen location (with a frame rate of 60 Hz) have a repeating sequence of intensities (within a limited intensity range) that repeats every four frames due to dithering, a viewer will likely perceive annoying 15 Hz flicker, especially where each frame contains a set of identical pixels of this type that are displayed contiguously in a large region of the display screen.
Seagull If you want to put something together, look in research journals. They are rigorous and peer reviewed, where the peers in question are generally the most experienced and most highly qualified in their field. That is the proof you will need.
That may be so, unfortunately for the lay person this is a monumental task. I wouldn't know where to begin looking, otherwise I would have prepped a case years ago.