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

Re: [PanoToolsNG] ivrpa patent fund

Expand Messages
  • Matthew Rogers - 360Precision
    One other main point Scott is this: A method patent claim is only infringed when a single person or entity practices all claimed steps. Referring to claim 1
    Message 1 of 79 , Apr 30, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      One other main point Scott is this:

      "A method patent claim is only infringed when a single person or entity practices all claimed steps."

      Referring to claim 1 as used in the legal letters.

      So for a Hotel client to be liable they would have had to:

      1. capture the images, did they ? NO

      You don't need to go past that point. That's it, end of story.

      This is the claim from the letter:

      Claim Element: "Capturing images surrounding an origin point"

      Evidence: " Use of mouse or other pointing device on your website varies the view of the image in a manner consistent with the capturing of images surrounding an origin point"

      How is the evidence any proof that the Hotel captured the images ? I'd just tell these people to go away. This letter amounts to nothing more than a Nigerian lottery/bank account scam.

      At the moment Apple is claiming that Samsung are infringing on patents regarding the user interface and design of their latest phones. The person using the Samsung phone isn't violating the patent and this case is no different. The Hotel website from my point of view is no different than the owner of the Samsung phone.

      I can't believe that any intelligent person is taking these people seriously. What I am upset about is the IVPRA using money I paid through membership and sponsorship on such nonsense. All the IVRPA needs to do is pay a lawyer a fee to write a decent rebuttal letter.

      I also truly believe that the original owners of the patent did not mean for the patent to cover what we're discussing today. This is clearly evident from the description of the invention of the patent. The current patent trolls have simply latched onto a patent with what seems like a very broad scope for enforcement. I doubt the owners or the lawyers have any expertise in this field.

      I think the intended invention outlined in the description is FAR more complex and advanced then anything currently available today. But it's very easy to conceptualise an idea but it's another to actually realise the end product.

      Also see below for comments

      On 30 Apr 2011, at 03:19, Scott Witte wrote:

      > On 4/29/2011 8:21 AM, Yazan Sboul wrote:
      > > I Guess I would like the IVRPA to clarify this once and for all. It
      > > seems like this argument keeps propping up and no one has yet
      > > explained exactly whether or not it has any bases.
      >
      > I've read the patents and in my unofficial opinion, the '400 absolutely
      > has no basis. It essentially copies the QuicktimeVR patent especially,
      > and also the iPix patent(s). They EVEN include the iPix patent that
      > covers using a single fisheye lens for video surveillance covering 180
      > degree fov. AND they include hotspots and linked panos and more. It
      > really reads like they just copied existing, then cutting edge
      > technologies of the day and called it their own. But that is my opinion.

      I'm not sure which patent you're reading but I see no mention of single fisheye images for video surveillance. You have to remember that the description and any other text outside of the 40 claims is completely irrelevant when determining an infringement. I also see no mention of hotspots per-say in the claims, they simple state that the system permits a transfer for one image to another. For the hotspot idea to be covered the patent would need to be specific like the Apple patent. The description may mention what could be interpreted as hotspots but again it's meaningless.

      The only time the description becomes relevant is in a jury trial, if the legal case ever reached that point. From the description however I think it would be very easy for TTS to claim validity of the patent. What they won't be able to do is use the patent to win any damages from IVPRA members of their clients/customers. Hence the reason no one has been sued in the last 7 years.


      >
      > Our lawyers looked at it and they feel strongly that it can be entirely
      > overturned or weakened to the point of inconsequence, as David has
      > explained elsewhere. IVRPA paid for that initial work to be certain we
      > had a case worth pursuing.

      If you try and have it overturned they'll simply use the arguments from my previous email to show difference in their methods.

      >
      > I want to emphasize that, IVRPA put itself out there financially,
      > significantly, for the benefit of the VR community. We wanted to be
      > certain of our case, of our approach, of the cost, before coming to the
      > community for funding to complete the mission. It was at the strong
      > urging, of the community and not just members, that we took on this
      > cause. It is quite the contrary to what some have suggested.
      >
      > > For the reasons above I suspect that overturning the patent will
      > > significantly reduce if not completely solve the problem. However I'm
      > > just applying logic, and I'm not involved in the case explicitly.
      >
      > It should be completely resolved. The gut feelings of some
      > notwithstanding, from our research it just won't be possible for someone
      > to find another junk patent with even a fraction of the weight of this one.

      Patent '400 has very little weight if any in the context of the work that IVRPA members produce especially by the time it's published to the clients site.

      >
      > > Also, As far as I can tell it has been decided to confine these
      > > discussions to the vr-patents google group. So I wont be posting here
      > > any more.
      >
      > You will notice that there are just some places I will not, can not go,
      > much to the frustration of some who want me to show more, name names,
      > more this more that..... it just isn't going to happen here. It can't.
      >
      > Thanks again to the growing number of people who are understanding the
      > importance of this effort -- for all of us.
      >
      > --
      > Scott Witte
      >
      > <http://www.scottwitte.com>
      > <http://www.tourdeforce360.com>
      > 414.345.9660
      > Member, IVRPA
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
    • djaurand
      Scott Henry mentioned he hasn t heard from Handal in a little while after just a token effort disputing his claims And I was thinking the letter from one of
      Message 79 of 79 , May 5, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Scott
        Henry mentioned he hasn't heard from Handal in a little while after just a token effort disputing his claims

        And I was thinking the letter from one of IVRPA's attorneys working on this might provide a little comfort to our customers, the ones being being theatened, being from an....attorney with a different view

        You guys are playing for the long game, but there's a short game too

        Like keeping customers and getting more business

        Doug Aurand

        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Scott Witte <scottw@...> wrote:
        >
        > That is what Henry tried. It makes no difference, certainly not to Handal.
        >
        > Scott
        >
        > On 5/5/2011 1:55 PM, djaurand wrote:
        > > My thinking was to have a trial attorney look at the infringement
        > > claims made in the Hotel Mella letter, consult with an IP attorney,
        > > and produce a response letter for any of Handals future cease & desist
        > > letters
        >
        > --
        > Scott Witte
        >
        > <http://www.scottwitte.com>
        > <http://www.tourdeforce360.com>
        > 414.345.9660
        > Member, IVRPA
        >
        >
        >
        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.