Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [PanoToolsNG] United States Patent And Trademark Office Grants Imatronics Founder

Expand Messages
  • AYRTON
    B.S. ... just one more ... -- ... + 55 21 9982 6313 http://ayrton360.com follow me : http://twitter.com/ayrton360 [Non-text portions of this message have been
    Message 1 of 13 , Aug 1, 2009
      B.S.
      :-(

      just one more


      On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 8:08 PM, imatronics <imatronics@...> wrote:

      >
      >
      >
      > We are pleased to inform you that the United States Patent And Trademark
      > Office (USPTO) has granted Imatronics Founder -- Dr. Frank Edughom Ekpar
      > -- patent rights to a broad range of imaging systems, devices and
      > methods.
      >
      > This patent grant is recorded in United States Patent Number 7567274
      > issued on July 28, 2009.
      >
      > You can access the full text of the patent on the USPTO web site:
      >
      >
      > http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=7567274
      > <http://patft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?patentnumber=7567274>
      >
      >
      > This invention introduces systems, devices and methods aimed at
      > simplifying
      > the creation and management of high-impact virtual tours as well as
      > novel
      > general-purpose imaging, multimedia and information processing systems.
      >
      > Our founder has made and continues to make well recognized contributions
      > to the scientific community and to the advancement of humanity.
      >
      > This patent grant is further recognition of our founder's abiding
      > commitment to the improvement of the human condition through scientific
      > research and development and to empowering you to create the best-valued
      > virtual tours.
      >
      > Imatronics Software -- including Panorama Express, Interactive Video,
      > Cute Album, OmniViewer, Media Express, etc -- is based on the only
      > authentic and comprehensively patented virtual tour system. By using
      > Imatronics Software to create and manage your virtual tours, you
      > leverage the results of over 15 years of cutting-edge scientific
      > research and development to take your virtual tour business to greater
      > heights.
      >
      > Please visit our web site to learn more about Imatronics:
      >
      >
      > http://www.imatronics.com <http://www.imatronics.com>
      >
      >
      >
      > Thank you for your attention.
      >
      >
      > Best regards,
      > The Imatronics Team.
      >
      > http://www.imatronics.com <http://www.imatronics.com>
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------
      >
      > --
      >
      >
      >
      >


      --
      ------------
      | A Y R |
      | T O N |
      ------------
      + 55 21 9982 6313
      http://ayrton360.com
      follow me :
      http://twitter.com/ayrton360


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Eduardo Hutter
      Obviously concerned about this new patent for the well know reasons, I was reading the patent grant and while I m not an expert -not even close to it- it seems
      Message 2 of 13 , Aug 1, 2009
        Obviously concerned about this new patent for the well know reasons, I
        was reading the patent grant and while I'm not an expert -not even close
        to it- it seems to me that this is not something to worry about. As far
        as I could understand from all the "legalese" this a claim over a
        specific method and "apparatus" commercialized by Immatronics, and not a
        generic patent.

        * imatronics wrote, On 01/08/2009 8:08 PM:

        > (...) This patent grant is further recognition of our founder's
        > abiding commitment to the improvement of the human condition (...)

        Sheesh, get over yourself, this is just a patent grant not a Nobel
        Prize. At most this is a recognition of you skills. The day you just
        give it away to the public for free, than we'll see.

        cheers,

        Eduardo
      • Eduardo Hutter
        ... err. should read your, not you and then, not than... of course. I have to do something for the improvement of my English. ;) E
        Message 3 of 13 , Aug 1, 2009
          > ... of you skills. The day you just give it away to the public for
          > free, than we'll ...

          err. should read your, not you and then, not than... of course. I have
          to do something for the improvement of my English. ;)

          E
        • Daniel Reetz
          ... Fortunately your English is vastly more comprehensible than the majority of this patent. d
          Message 4 of 13 , Aug 1, 2009
            > err. should read your, not you and then, not than... of course. I have
            > to do something for the improvement of my English. ;)

            Fortunately your English is vastly more comprehensible than the
            majority of this patent.
            d
          • Scott Witte
            This is indeed an extraordinary and ground breaking invention. To quote ... The ability to encode static data such as an image or frame of a video into the
            Message 5 of 13 , Aug 2, 2009
              This is indeed an extraordinary and ground breaking invention. To quote
              from the patent:

              > The entire 360-degree lateral field of view around the user is
              > captured in a single image *flame*. .... A single image *flame* covers
              > the entire 360-degree lateral field of view.
              The ability to encode static data such as an image or frame of a video
              into the dynamic, largely random and ephemeral medium of a flame has
              consequences and application far beyond VR imaging. I am in awe.


              But seriously, the basis of this patent seems to rest on using a "one
              shot" lens or
              > (panoramic annular lens systems) characterized by a 360-degree lateral
              > field of view and a vertical field of view that is usually less than
              > 180 degrees and *producing a donut-shaped panoramic annular image as
              > output* in the creation of spherical environment maps.
              I thought I saw one shot solutions exactly like this in use and for sale
              back in 2000, for sure by October 2002. If so, I'm not sure how a patent
              application filed afterward could be successful. If someone from
              Imatronics would care to clarify I think we all would be interested.

              I will leave it to others to decipher the algorithm and interface
              aspects of the patent. But on brief inspection it generally seems to be
              patenting capabilities and methods, some of which have existed since the
              first introduction of QTVR. If so, I fail to see how the patent could be
              upheld. I'm probably missing something.

              --
              Scott Witte
              ---------------------------------
              *WITTE *ON* LOCATION*
              Advertising Photography <http://www.scottwitte.com>
              360 Virtual Tours <http://www.scottwitte.com/VR/>
              414.345.9660
              Member, IVRPA




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • crane@ukonline.co.uk
              ... This patent application seems to have been assembled using the communication tool known as the english language. Perhaps we should patent it and put a stop
              Message 6 of 13 , Aug 3, 2009
                Quoting Scott Witte <scottwitte@...>:

                > This is indeed an extraordinary and ground breaking invention. To quote
                > from the patent:
                >
                > > The entire 360-degree lateral field of view around the user is
                > > captured in a single image *flame*. .... A single image *flame* covers
                > > the entire 360-degree lateral field of view.
                > The ability to encode static data such as an image or frame of a video
                > into the dynamic, largely random and ephemeral medium of a flame has
                > consequences and application far beyond VR imaging. I am in awe.

                This patent application seems to have been assembled using the communication
                tool known as the english language. Perhaps we should patent it and put a stop
                to these sort of abuses ?
                mick


                ----------------------------------------------
                This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net
              • ahoeben41
                Wim Koorneef asked me to give my 2 cents worth regarding the Ekpar patent. I think he asked me because I have written a panorama viewer, and panorama viewers
                Message 7 of 13 , Aug 3, 2009
                  Wim Koorneef asked me to give my 2 cents worth regarding the Ekpar patent. I think he asked me because I have written a panorama viewer, and panorama viewers are mentioned in the patent. There's a dutch patent which has my name on it as the inventor, so I know a bit of dutch patent law, but even less about international law. I am *not a lawyer*, so *don't take this message as more than two cents*.

                  First a small bit about the anatomy of a patent text. When you want to know what is patented, skip the "Abstract" section, and go straight to the "Claims". The Abstract is just a summary, and not always very accurate, in the sense that a lawyer/judge will not grant any rights/make decissions based on what is or is not mentioned in the Abstract. Similarly, all the text after the "Claims" section only serves to clarify the invention, but not everything mentioned in the description is automatically covered by the patent if it is not mentioned in the "Claims".

                  Then there's the "newness" of the invention. It is a mistake to think that an invention has to be new in order to get a patent on it. In many countries, you can get a patent for just about anything. The question is if it will hold up in court if the invention is not new (ie: there exists "prior art"). Even if the patented invention is not new, if "they" have better lawyers then "we", or "we" can't even afford a lawyer, then the patent will hold ground. Also, the combination of several non-new elements into a "novel" system may be considered new enough to hold its own in court. So even seemingly "unpatentable" patents can cause grieve, but only once the patent-holder starts enforcing it.

                  Finally the patent itself. Looking at the claims, nrs 1 and 23 are the big ones; the others fall back to them. If these two turn out to be undefendable, the rest falls with them. If you split claim 1 at the semicolons, you get:
                  An apparatus (...) comprising:
                  a panorama data acquisition unit (...)
                  a transform engine (...) implementing means of correcting distortions
                  a package generator adapted to generate virtual tour packages
                  a viewing engine (...) implementing means for perspective correction, and user interaction
                  a control engine adapted to facilitate a higher level of interaction
                  a display means for rendering output
                  Notice there's no "or" here, so the list seems to be inclusive. It seems that what they are actually patenting is the combination of all these aspects. As long as you are not producing an "apparatus" that does all of this, I don't think you're breaching the patent (but this is just my limited understanding).

                  (note: I don't really get what they means by "stimuli" in the text... but they seem to like the word)

                  The patent claims are very broad. But what they are focussing on in the descriptive text after the claims is quite a bit more specific. From that text it looks like they have developed an optic which makes "donut-type" images (which explains the "usually less than 180 degrees" vertical), and a recursive automated way of calibrating the system. The images that go with the patent text are rather clarifying.

                  If that is what they are seeking to protect, I don't see much of a problem for us going forward. It is entirely possible that mr Ekpar just meant to patent his lens and calibration method, but his patent advisor advised him to keep the claims broader just to include the rest of his work. Note that this is pure speculation on my behalf!

                  At this point, I don't think it is necessary for me to consult a lawyer, but if you are worried I encourage you to do so, rather than get more (or less) worried from "things you read on the forums" (like this post).

                  'do
                • Wim Koornneef
                  Hello Aldo, Thanks for sharing your analyses of the situation and your thoughts about the patent. They are definitely worth more then just 2 cents ! Best, Wim
                  Message 8 of 13 , Aug 3, 2009
                    Hello Aldo,

                    Thanks for sharing your analyses of the situation and your thoughts about
                    the patent.
                    They are definitely worth more then just 2 cents !

                    Best,
                    Wim


                    ahoeben wrote:
                    >
                    > Wim Koorneef asked me to give my 2 cents worth regarding the Ekpar patent.
                    > I think he asked me because I have written a panorama viewer, and panorama
                    > viewers are mentioned in the patent. There's a dutch patent which has my
                    > name on it as the inventor, so I know a bit of dutch patent law, but even
                    > less about international law. I am *not a lawyer*, so *don't take this
                    > message as more than two cents*.
                    >
                    > First a small bit about the anatomy of a patent text. When you want to
                    > know what is patented, skip the "Abstract" section, and go straight to the
                    > "Claims". The Abstract is just a summary, and not always very accurate, in
                    > the sense that a lawyer/judge will not grant any rights/make decissions
                    > based on what is or is not mentioned in the Abstract. Similarly, all the
                    > text after the "Claims" section only serves to clarify the invention, but
                    > not everything mentioned in the description is automatically covered by
                    > the patent if it is not mentioned in the "Claims".
                    >
                    > Then there's the "newness" of the invention. It is a mistake to think that
                    > an invention has to be new in order to get a patent on it. In many
                    > countries, you can get a patent for just about anything. The question is
                    > if it will hold up in court if the invention is not new (ie: there exists
                    > "prior art"). Even if the patented invention is not new, if "they" have
                    > better lawyers then "we", or "we" can't even afford a lawyer, then the
                    > patent will hold ground. Also, the combination of several non-new elements
                    > into a "novel" system may be considered new enough to hold its own in
                    > court. So even seemingly "unpatentable" patents can cause grieve, but only
                    > once the patent-holder starts enforcing it.
                    >
                    > Finally the patent itself. Looking at the claims, nrs 1 and 23 are the big
                    > ones; the others fall back to them. If these two turn out to be
                    > undefendable, the rest falls with them. If you split claim 1 at the
                    > semicolons, you get:
                    > An apparatus (...) comprising:
                    > a panorama data acquisition unit (...)
                    > a transform engine (...) implementing means of correcting distortions
                    > a package generator adapted to generate virtual tour packages
                    > a viewing engine (...) implementing means for perspective correction,
                    > and user interaction
                    > a control engine adapted to facilitate a higher level of interaction
                    > a display means for rendering output
                    > Notice there's no "or" here, so the list seems to be inclusive. It seems
                    > that what they are actually patenting is the combination of all these
                    > aspects. As long as you are not producing an "apparatus" that does all of
                    > this, I don't think you're breaching the patent (but this is just my
                    > limited understanding).
                    >
                    > (note: I don't really get what they means by "stimuli" in the text... but
                    > they seem to like the word)
                    >
                    > The patent claims are very broad. But what they are focussing on in the
                    > descriptive text after the claims is quite a bit more specific. From that
                    > text it looks like they have developed an optic which makes "donut-type"
                    > images (which explains the "usually less than 180 degrees" vertical), and
                    > a recursive automated way of calibrating the system. The images that go
                    > with the patent text are rather clarifying.
                    >
                    > If that is what they are seeking to protect, I don't see much of a problem
                    > for us going forward. It is entirely possible that mr Ekpar just meant to
                    > patent his lens and calibration method, but his patent advisor advised him
                    > to keep the claims broader just to include the rest of his work. Note that
                    > this is pure speculation on my behalf!
                    >
                    > At this point, I don't think it is necessary for me to consult a lawyer,
                    > but if you are worried I encourage you to do so, rather than get more (or
                    > less) worried from "things you read on the forums" (like this post).
                    >
                    > 'do
                    >
                    >
                    >

                    --
                    View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/United-States-Patent-And-Trademark-Office-Grants-Imatronics-Founder-tp24773495p24789476.html
                    Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.