IPIX Shuts Down Free Software Developer - Again 145
l-ascorbic writes: "In 1999, Internet Pictures Corporation (IPIX) started persecuting anyone who made software to produce 360 images. They succeeded in forcing Professor Helmut Dersch, the creator of the GPL Panorama Tools to remove certain functionality from his software.
Well, they're at it again. They have now
forced him to shut his website. IPIX hold several US patents on remapping fisheye images, and first went after US sites that linked to the PanoTools site. Prof Dersch says he may now have to distribute his software using tricks similar to those
needed by GIMP to avoid the Unisys GIF patents."
Re:UNFAIR to patent and lock up PRIOR ART (Score:1)
Evil tactics... (Score:1)
They've now advanced their business model to a per image produced cost, and the images their software produces are time limited (ie: the iPIX viewers will not honor an image once it's key has expired).
About a year ago, I worked for a company that used iPIX technology, but were getting sick of the cost and wanted to move to a free alternative. However, they had tons of their images locked up in iPIX format. Investing a little time in cracking their encryption, it turns out that it's basically still the old file format with a JPEG inside, so I wrote some code to extract the JPEG images, or extend the viewing life of the iPIX image, and I also wrote a Java applet iPIX-like viewer for iPIX images, that completely ignores the time stamp info. If there's enough interest, perhaps I'll post these tools around...
Re:Yeesh. (Score:1)
Because he thinks *patents* have to be protected. It is not a *view*. It is a *fact* that *trademarks* have to be protected against dilution, but not *patents*.
> I couldn't agree more with him.
This doesn't make him right, but it does makes you wrong.
> That is wrong, patents must also be actively protected.
Nope. See the UNISYS GIF patent, for example. There is a shitload of other examples of patent hidden for years before using them as weapons or cash-cows (RAMBUS, BT,
> We wouldn't have much medicine if IP didn't exist. Who would afford to spend billions of dollars on AIDS research if anyone could just copy it when it's done.
Explain this to any south africa resident.
> Do you think people spends huge amounts of $$$ on research just because they think it's fun?
ipix spent very little money on research. They patented something rather obvious (using fishlens to produce 360 images) that was done before.
Anyway, explain me what good software patents did to software ? Can you give me serious example of software that would not have been developed if it was not patentable (I can give you example of software that have *not* been developed because of existing software patents) ?
Cheers,
--fred
Re:So.. what's the story? (Score:1)
In fact, just about any graduate student in astronomy in the 70s and 80s (including yours truly) used these algorithms, and algorithms from which theirs evolved, to remove nonlinear mapping in images. In fact, some telescopes had to use curved glass on photographic plates to remove those "warpages".
*sigh* (Score:1)
Re:what taxpayer should get (Score:1)
Whatever is done in modern western countries brought not just the wealth but also some strange phenomenons like Microsoft domination caused by another phenomenon: pepole unwiling to THINK.
Btw, it looks like your top goal is wealth. Mine is to be content. While to be content I need some wealth, wealth is not everything I need to be content.
Those interested in details please read for example Neal Stephenson's "In the Beginning was the Command Line" [spack.org].
Note: it's quite a long article (it took me 3.5 hours to read) but it is very good.
what taxpayer should get (Score:1)
Yes, I do. Because "those people" are not ripping off.
So taxpayers are benefiting - they get software for fraction of price because of a lot of people payed development.
Also point 2 can be taken even further:
So my country is also benefiting!
freenet? (Score:1)
the panorama tools to freenet and post the key on
slashdot.
Re:Whu? (Score:1)
--
US Patent Office (Score:1)
Sad thing is the overseas offices are bowing to this idiocy as well and granting the patent in the other countries since it should be ok since it passed in the US.
The last couple of years I have been so amazed at the sheer lack of common sense or ability to think logically it is not funny anymore.
I mean, patents on math equations, trademarks on parts/pieces of the english language, patents on vague ideas.
And they wonder with idiocies like this why suicide rates are high. *sigh*
Interesting point of view found (Score:1)
us patent office stupidity
search on Google.
Second hit leads to www.patent.gov.uk:
''The Amazon "one clicV patent (in the USA) highlights the stupidity of allowing patents on methods. To recap, Amazon combined web-pages, cookies (which store information about web users) and program code to allow users to buy products by simply clicking on a button on a web page. The technology wasn't new or innovative, it just hadn't been combined in exactly the same way. Now other web sites are prevented from offering a similar interface to users because of Amazons patent. The result is the consumer loses out.''
Nice to see some offices have some sensibility left.
Re:The "We Must Defend Ourselves" Defence (Score:1)
I don't know, he hasn't really had a hit since She Blinded Me with Science, has he?
Science!
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Apple? (Score:1)
Those are 3d panoramic images, eh?
I wonder why? Hmmm.... a mystery.
Oh! Perhaps it's that Apple's a big fucking company with a cadre of frothy-mouthed pit-bull lawyers of their own who'd likely tell iPIX to fuck off in 15 pages of legalese, unless they were having a bad day in which case they'd bend 'em over and well, i'll leave off there.
Stupid patent office. God i hate those fuckers.
-krb-
Re:Ummmm.... not quite that simple (Score:1)
In other words, they have the sole and exclusive right to convert fisheye images to panoramas, regardless of how it's done. It's not a matter of "how" you do it, it's that you're doing it in the first place.
Think about that. It's like saying that a particular tire manufacturer has the sole and exclusive right to make round tires, regardless of the manufacturing method used. It wouldn't be a matter of "how" you made the tires, but that you made them in the first place.
See how ludicrious that sounds?
--
do you read these things? (Score:1)
To use the threat of legal action as a way to force small developers or individuals into a particular path of action is reprehensible, and that's one of the biggest issues here. We all understand the concepts of IP, and of the fact that money is what puts food on the table. However, using legal manuevering to crush completely legitimate competition or development is NOT something any of us want to encourage.
Try reading some of the links and background info before you spew pointless rants. thanks.
DeCSS (Score:1)
--
Re:what about quicktime VR??? (Score:1)
Re:No need to call. (Score:1)
I was specifically responding to the argument put forth by someone else [slashdot.org] which I believe isn't a very good one.
I don't believe in software patents as they stand today, but I wasn't arguing for or against this particular one.
Re:No need to call. (Score:1)
Oh, you mean the secrets anyone is able to acquire [164.195.100.11] from the US patent office?
"Millions" developing? This isn't IBM researching how to improve harddrive data density, this isn't DuPont researching how to create a better weed killer. This is a small company that had an idea (original or not) and patented it. In this case, it took a very small amount of time and effort to create the idea. It could easily have been some guy in the shower thinking about spherical image fields and realizing, "Hey, I bet we can use fisheye images too!".
Maybe people don't understand, or perhaps you haven't really thought enough about it.
Re:No need to call. (Score:1)
Re:I know (Score:1)
Unfortunately nowadays all they serve for is slowing progress by allowing companies to enforce monopolistic schemes on their technology and preventing anybody else from innovating anything if he doesn't reinvent the wheel first!
Re:My company felt the wrath of IPIX (Score:1)
what about sky mapping .... (Score:1)
Re:What exactly is the problem here? (Score:1)
Any decent programmer with a book on spherical trig, some graphics experience, and the will to do it could create similar software.
Here's an older IPrix press release (Score:1)
available:see www.ipix.com press releases Feb 10, 1998)
JURY UPHOLDS INTERACTIVE PICTURES' PATENTS IN INFRINGEMENT CASE
Company Now Stands Alone as Provider of Fisheye-Lens-Based Immersive
Photography
OAK RIDGE, Feb. 10, 1998 - A United States District Court jury has upheld as
valid and infringed the core patent upon which IPIX immersive photography
technology is based.
The jury's decision provides court-tested validation of the company's core
patent. The jury held that Interactive Pictures Corporation has the exclusive
rights to immersive photography created with a fisheye lens. Interactive
Pictures' patented technology allows users to interact within a photographic
image. The patented technology represents the building blocks for photographic
virtual reality and three-dimensional photographic imaging.
Interactive Pictures filed suit against Infinite Pictures, Inc. of Portland,
Ore. in October of 1996. Interactive Pictures claimed that Infinite Pictures'
SmoothMove and RealWorld Navigation Design Series products infringed
Interactive Pictures', U.S. Patent No. 5,185,667. The jury found for the
plaintiff, Interactive Pictures, unanimously on all counts of the verdict and
awarded damages of $1,000,000 to Interactive Pictures. Interactive Pictures
will request entry of a permanent injunction against Infinite Pictures to
prevent further marketing of products based on the infringing technology upon
entry of the jury's verdict by the court.
"This is the first court test of our patent portfolio and the jury has stated
loud and clear that IPIX technology is pioneering, unique, and protected,"
said Jim Phillips, CEO of Interactive Pictures. "A judicially tested and
vindicated patent portfolio makes Interactive Pictures a much stronger
company and gives us a tremendous advantage in penetrating new markets and
growing our company."
As a result of the decision, Interactive Pictures is now the only company in
the United States with the rights to use a wide-angle fisheye lens to create
immersive photographs. Last September, Live Picture Corporation, which also
had been sued by Interactive Pictures for patent infringement, agreed that
the Interactive Pictures patents were valid and enforceable. Live Picture
also agreed to stop its use of fisheye lenses.
A judgement of infringement also has been entered against Bill Tillman
awarding Interactive Pictures damages of approximately $967,000. Tillman,
doing business as Graphic Effects, used the infringing Infinite Pictures
products on the World Wide Web.
IPIX immersive photography technology now stands alone in the industry,
protected by a Federal Court jury decision. The possibility of an emerging
standard in immersive photography is more likely as a result of this decision.
With IPIX images as a de-facto standard, doors are open to wider-scale
marketing of IPIX technology and growth of the company.
Steven Zimmermann, corporate fellow at Interactive Pictures and co-inventor of
the patented technology said, "It's incredibly gratifying to know that all the
hard work we did back in the early 1990's was affirmed by a jury. This is a
major recognition for all those late nights and weekends. Now we can really
accelerate this technology into the market and continue to advance it."
A computer and electrical engineering professor at the University of
Tennessee and 1978 graduate of MIT was involved in the case from the
beginning. Dr. Doug Birdwell, Ph.D. served as an expert witness at the trial
for Interactive Pictures and testified that the Infinite Pictures products
used technology that infringed on the patented IPIX technology.
Birdwell said, "The Interactive Pictures patent was a pioneering patent,
representing an enormous advance over the prior art. The infringer, Infinite
Pictures, attempted to take the heart of the IPIX technology and the jury
correctly found that this was infringement of the core Interactive Pictures
patent."
Beyond the positive impact on the strength of Interactive Pictures' patent
portfolio, the case may become a landmark in the field of patent law. This is
one of the first times that a patent infringement case has successfully been
brought against a company that used the Internet to commit acts of patent
infringement. Interactive Pictures was represented by Washington, D.C. patent
law firm Banner & Witcoff, Ltd.
By showing that Infinite Pictures sold the infringing products over the
Internet to customers in Tennessee, Interactive Pictures was able to
establish jurisdiction for the case in the United States District Court for
the Eastern Division of Tennessee. Beyond the issue of jurisdiction the
infringer, Infinite Pictures, sold the infringing product over the Internet
giving rise to one of the first cases that showed that patent infringement
occurred through the use of the World Wide Web.
Speaking of the technology's inventors, Steve Zimmermann and Dr. Lee Martin,
Phillips said, "Today, as was Thomas Edison, these inventors have been granted
a chance to profit from their labor and give their revolutionary invention an
opportunity to succeed in the marketplace."
For information, contact:
Ed Lewis, Interactive Pictures Corporation
phone: 423-482-3000
Re:I know (Score:1)
Or, better yet, create a new unit, called the IPIXSucks, where 4096 IPIXSucks is 360 degrees -> power of two means lots of bitshift math options!
Re:I know (Score:1)
What I don't understand is how they want to force their patents in Europe, since algorithms cannot be patented (at least not in Germany), only implementations.
In case you're asking about the GIMP's tricks... (Score:1)
The biggest change will affect PTStitcher and the
Panorama Tools. I am planning and suggesting a
procedure similar to the distribution method
of graphics programs like 'The Gimp'. This program
has to cope with GIF images and the corresponding
Unisys patent. The solution is to distribute a
basic no-GIF version of 'The Gimp'. For users in
'no-Unisys' countries ( ie where Unisys has no patent),
there is an optional plug-in to enable GIF. The download
site (which is also the main Gimp download site) is
in Finland, which happens to be such a 'no-Unisys'
country. In some countries (like Germany), the private
royalty-free use of any patent is allowed, so that
even some users in 'unisys-countries' might
be allowed to legally take advantage of this.
So on my website, there will only be a 'No_Fisheye'
version of Panorama Tools and PTStitcher (actually,
this functionality resides in the common library
pano12.dll/lib). The sources and a 'Fisheye' version
of pano12.dll/lib could then be downloaded from and to
'noipix' countries. People who want to use the
correction capabilities of Panorama Tools, or
who are using PTStitcher as a multirow-stitcher
for rectilinear images etc, ie who do not need fisheye
conversions, can then use my software
without constant threat from this fine company.
All others have to decide for themselves.
Re:We're not talking about copyrights or TMs, damn (Score:1)
I guess this explains why they think they can get away with a licensing scheme that is per image made, so you have to buy new keys all the time. In Norway one image costs NOK 200, or about $22.
Re:what about quicktime VR??? (Score:1)
Linus has,in fact,grown,and explosively-JonKatz
Prior Art (Score:1)
I seem to remember at college (Carnegie Mellon - we're big geeks) playing Quake CTF, and one team-mate used to guard our flag in 360deg mode.
Made it pretty hard to sneak up on him.
anyone feel like researching this and telling bountyquest?
Re:My company felt the wrath of IPIX (Score:1)
The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
Re:I know (Score:1)
Not wishing to be picky - but you could make 361 degree, 720 degree images or similar, and we souldn't notice
You probably would, however, notice a nice neat line down your image :)
Re:My company felt the wrath of IPIX (Score:1)
Next up on the chopping block (Score:1)
I worked on panoramic stuff in 1999 (Score:1)
Back in 1999, there were a few panoramic software companies popping up. The nice thing about the development of it is that the math is pretty simple. We had a java applet panoramic image viewer that ran reasonably fast (>10fps) on pentium machines. Figuring out the math took a couple of days, and optimization only took a few weeks.
The tougher part of the problem is of course the image creation, which we used a specialized 3d rasterization pipeline to accomplish. I'm even named on a patent for some of the technology we used.
QTVR is quite different from IPIX (Score:2)
The original QTVR is a cylinder view, with limited ability to look up and down. QTVR uses multiple (12-36 usually) photographs and dynamically distorts them in the QT viewer, something like a branching-frame movie, where one can scrub back and forth (and to alternate track timelines), rather than just watch in sequence.
IPIX uses a fisheye lens (usually just two shots) and undistorts the view to make a sphere (NOT cylinder). So, they are attacking others who use the sphere, but not Apple.
This is despite the fact that prior art existed before IPIX's patent was filed. Incidently, IPIX bought the patent from a endoscopic firm (which used the technology to make pictures inside bodies for the medical field), they did not create the technology. Even worse, IPIX charges lame royalties for every IPIX picture. QTVR's are free, and the tools range from free to high end pro prices.
Also interesting is that in the new QT 5, Apple created a new technology they call Cubic VR, which maps out full up and down panoramic views on a cube rather than a cylinder or sphere. The result is no trouble from IPIX, and the earlier versions of QTVR can PLAY THEM as cylinders!
Apple rocks, IPIX sucks.
if they wanted to shut down the guy's website... (Score:2)
useless mirror i made a few years ago (Score:2)
--
Forget Napster. Why not really break the law?
Well, this _is_ infuriating (Score:2)
He makes these things available _free_ to advance science and art in general.
Among the things that will NOT be affected by IPIX are the ability of his software to correct for normal lens pincushion and chrominance distortion (luminance? the darkening of edges of an image), the ability to do wild and very high-resolution distortions for artistic purposes, the ability to take rectangular images and modify them so you can stitch them into a panorama (I actually have a QTVR panorama [airwindows.com] of my old studio's early days, done exclusively with Helmut's tools and hand-stitched (with no stretching) before his software helped you do that).
Going after Helmut is a crime. I am glad he is showing the same patient methodical attitude that pervades the rest of his work, and plans to work around the problem in reasonable ways.
My secret fear is that IPIX will try and push its limit, for instance attempting to muzzle Helmut entirely because his algorithms and tools CAN BE used or adapted to the fisheye case. In that event, my outrage would become unbearable- it would be a matter of suppressing the desire to go buy an uzi and HUNT THEM DOWN, and instead settling for scraping together money and paying someone to HUNT THEM DOWN LEGALLY. As in EFF, or some other likely candidate.
IPIX had better know its limits. I consider too-extensive persecution of a 'open' scientist to be an act of war. It's an act of war against the community of scientific information sharing that got all of us where we are, and I can't consider that a situation for simple workarounds. At some point you have to wage war back, whether that's through lawyers or through DOSing or through people planting rumours and destroying their company's stock price even more, or even, if the persecuted scientist is being threatened with imprisonment or violence, threatening back in kind. So far, the most extensive threat being made has been fines and imprisonment through use of the government as a weapon. In other industries (*cough* music industry *cough*) threat of physical violence has often been a quiet and unremarked additional element. Things are escalating, and if people like IPIX decide they want to start acting like the shadier sides of the music biz in their desire to stamp out all possible competition for their product, there needs to be a response ready.
I can't believe anyone would try and suppress Helmut Dersch. The question that is obviously on my mind is, how FAR will they go if unchallenged? Who else is being stepped on? And, can we be certain that all the coercive force being applied is strictly confined to narrow legal claims and patent-related demands? Record labels have often been known to use muscle in dealing with radio stations and programming- hell, Bob Marley's rise was partly reliant on just this sort of strong-arming. How do we know if companies like IPIX cross that line? And there are plenty of companies like IPIX :P
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:2)
Acrobat Reader is free, Acrobat Distiller or whatever they call the creator is not. Knowledgable readers will point out that Mac OS X includes PDF creation facilities (there is a printer driver that generates PDF files), but God only knows how much Apple paid Adobe for this privilege. Adobe isn't really a good example here as they have a lucrative traditional software business to subsidize this.
Quicktime
The free version of QT also has some restrictions on viewing (can't go full screen, can't escape custom movie interfaces). And, FWIW, it used to be entirely free until Apple realized people would actually pay for this stuff in version 3. It's possible to get around the limits by using old software that isn't aware of the licensing system.
Real The player and content creator are both free. They charge for the streaming server.
Re:OK, gentlemen (Score:2)
PanoTools.tar.gz
PTVJ.zip
PTViewer.tar.gz
PtFAQ.html
StBp.JPG
PanoTools.zip
examplesWin.zip
examples.tar.gz
On my Gnutella and coming soon to a server near you.
Chris Cothrun
Curator of Chaos
Re:Yeesh. (Score:2)
You're comparing apples and wintels. Trademarks need to be defended, otherwise they become part of the cultural landscape and can no longer be trademarked. Kleenex and Band-Aid are on the virge of that now, Xerox was on the virge 15 years ago but came back and now everyone calls it "photocopying."
All this trademark talk is interesting, but irrelevant. This isn't a case of copyright infringement either, unless the professor was dumb enough to copy IPIX's code. This is a case of patent infringement, for which there is no legal obligation to pursue, only financial. If I patent something, I can completely ignore $favorite_OS users who use my patent, but sue each and every $hated_OS user who uses my patent. The trademark law that you are vaugely familiar with isn't an issue.
Before asking whether "we really want to live in a world without intellectual property," I suggest you learn the different types of IP that are legally defined, as well as the opposing camp's arguements. For the IPIX patent, I suggest that making a 360 degree image is obvious to anyone who works with photos and as such is a Bad Patent(tm).
--
What kind of tricks... (Score:2)
Since the slashdot kiddies apparently find reading a /. blurb AND and entire article too tiring....
GIMP, by default, distributes a no-GIF-support version of the software. In countries where people can ignore (stupid) US Patents on software, there is a plugin for GIMP that adds GIF support to GIMP. This is how GIMP gets around the Unisys patent
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
WTF ... this tech existed in 1965 (Score:2)
What I saw in 1965 was a system of converting a single photograph taken with a fisheye lens in either up or down orientation, and produced a long strip print that gave a view of the surrounding area. You could view it as an outward view and it looked kinda funny, or stick your head in the middle and view it all around and it looked really cool.
I didn't see the actual mechanism of producing it; I only saw the original fisheye image blown up, and the resultant 360 degree connected strip. But how it was done was quite obvious to me. I saw this at the Columbus (Ohio, USA) Museum of Science and Industry. If it was patented then, it has long since expired.
I don't know if this is exactly what IPIX is claiming. But if it is, then their patents are bogus for two reasons: prior art, and utterly obvious. If IPIX is basing the life of their company on this technology, then it's a doomed company.
Even More information ... (Score:2)
As a side note, it would be of use for the patent articles to include patent references.
Now appearing on Fuckedcompany.ca (Score:2)
A couple of good friends of mine worked for them, and all got laid off last month. Sure, this has nothing to do with the patents, but it bears mentioning.
Pope
Re:Does this mean I have to use Windows again? (Score:2)
Re:I know (Score:2)
Cute. Or make a 1080 degree image, with red, green and blue in different rotations. Yeh.
Actually... (Score:2)
Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
Fair, IMHO (Score:2)
Think about it: you pay for the right to have access to thousands of other patented technologies. Why, when it comes to software, do we always want to GPL the world? It doesn't matter that the project was about free software; we're talking about Intelectual Property here. That's why patents exist: to protect indefensive corporations from malevolous open source developers.
--
Panorama Tools kick ass (Score:2)
It is a sad day when a guy as committed to providing great software to the community as Mr. Dersch gets bullied by the U.S. Patent Office and a litigious company who have obviously failed to come up with anything as functional as Mr. Dersch's Panorama Tools.
One can only hope the European Patent Office will look a little closer at the many cases of clear prior art with regard to IPIX's patent, and then throwing it in the bin where it belongs.
Down with IPIX and incompetent patent offices.
Re:Panorama Tools kick ass (Score:2)
They are, however, faster and easier to produce - 2 images, as opposed to the 12-16 you need to cover a full 360 degrees with a non-fisheye lens.
Thats really the only benefit - in fact taking lots of pictures will give you a better quality final image, assuming you can orient and align the images perfectly - i use a tripod with calibration marks on it to do mine, with excellent results.
Panorama Tools lets you use both methods to produce panoramic images, also has a free viewer, runs on several OSes as plugins for the GIMP and Photoshop, and has high-quality output.
Re:Yeesh. (Score:2)
I don't know, but it does look like every time we have an intellectual property article we're going to have a post by someone who can't distinguish between patents, copyright, and trademarks but wants to defend the poor innocent lawyer-happy corporation anyway.
grab it (Score:2)
Does this mean I have to use Windows again? (Score:2)
Just having purchased a new digital camera, I was disappointed to learn that there was a lack of software to do the stitching under un*x. I found links to Panorama Tools (huzzah!) but saw the site was down (no!)
Well, that'll teach the good professor to write software and not release it anonymously.
I don't understand... (Score:2)
Re:UNFAIR to patent and lock up PRIOR ART (Score:2)
Degrees (Score:2)
The linux community should be making 2 pi radian Spin-arounds!
--Alex Fishman
elaborate plz? (Score:2)
What sort of tricks?
What about freenet? Or putting it on Russian servers? Is linking still illegal or did they change that?
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
I know (Score:2)
--
Re:No need to call. (Score:2)
I just find it hard to grasp that it would take "millions of dollars" to spend to get the idea of making a 360 degree image.
UNFAIR to patent and lock up PRIOR ART (Score:2)
Maybe there is nothing wrong with a company trying to outlaw people from continuing to use a freely available technology that the company had nothing to do with, and make it its own.
Maybe we should get rid of prior art.
Just allow any company to take any non-patented technology, and claim it as its own, and outlaw the previous users of it from continuing to use it.
Maybe we can do the equivalent in the real world. Allow any company to take over any public park, and take it over. For $20K.
IS this the world you want?!?
I sure don't!
What kind of tricks? (Score:2)
What kind of tricks does GIMP use to avoid Unisys's patents?
Refrag
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:2)
You might want to read the licensing clause in the front of the PDF and PostScript definitions, btw. It's rather interesting -- it reserves trademark rights but essentially allows both definitions to be mostly public domain. Apple IMHO could have done the same thing in implementing their own DPS engine; I presume there was a touch of politics involved, though.
As for Quicktime... Hmm. I think the thing with Quicktime is that it is, more than even the MacOS or the hardware, *the* crown jewel of Apple's intellectual property. Nobody has created a better version of what Quicktime does and Apple feels the need to keep that going as a potential revenue stream. You may like it, you may not, but that's how it is. (Though I think the real reason they don't open source has a lot more to do with the Sorenson codec than it does anything else...)
/Brian
Re:Panorama Tools kick ass (Score:2)
I have never tried making a pano with a fisheye lens. Isn't that what Panorama Tools is for, and what the IPIX patent is on?
Why is it so great? I make lots of panos with my nikon 990, but I use normal photos to do them. There must be something better about fisheye panos to make the extra expense worthwhile.
Re:Whu? (Score:2)
Re:So.. what's the story? (Score:2)
Wired article here. [wired.com]
Re:My company felt the wrath of IPIX (Score:2)
You're sure that was work on your hand?
After a couple months in development, my team was contacted by IPIX lawyers and forced to stop development.
I'm curious how the IPIX lawyers found out details of your project while in development. (Or had it been released to the public?) Did your competitors know what you were up to? Was there previous contact with IPIX? Were you putting the word out for outsourcing technology or doing press releases or anything?
Re:What kind of tricks? (Score:2)
Re:prior art? (Score:2)
Re:elaborate plz? (Score:2)
Re:I know (Score:2)
Well, your fingers weave quick minarets; Speak in secret alphabets;
Re:No need to call. (Score:2)
Re:prior art? (Score:2)
IMHO, QuickTime VR is a nicer approach, because you can use any camera, but the fisheye approach is quicker.
"What are we going to do tonight, Bill?"
Busy lawyers (Score:2)
"What are we going to do tonight, Bill?"
The different motivations of men (Score:2)
Wonderful humans are more complicated than any theory can explain. Money is a good motivator, I reckon. I'm fairly motivated by it myself. But is not the only one, and many times not the most powerful.
--
Re:Ummmm.... not quite that simple (Score:2)
--
Re:elaborate plz? (Score:2)
Re:OK, gentlemen (Score:3)
I've taken a brief look at these and they appear to be wonderful very useful tools, aside from the patent stuff in question. I appears that IPIX is acting in an overbroad manner by supressing these.
Chris Cothrun
Curator of Chaos
Whu? (Score:3)
And certainly they can't have a patent on taking fishlense images and making them normal. Because that sort of thing has been going on since Panavision movie-making was developed.
And they certainly can't have a patent on stitching together images, because people been doing that since forever.
Really, all they could patent is a particular algorithm for it -- and I'm not sure they could even patent that, 'cause it's just mathematics!
WTF is up here?
--
Re:what about quicktime VR??? (Score:3)
The International Quicktime VR Association also has an anti-IPIX page at: http://www.iqtvra.org/noipix.html [iqtvra.org].
We're not talking about copyrights or TMs, damnit! (Score:3)
And anyway, the patents themselves are extremely dubious -- it's just that no one has the resources to challenge them.
The reason they're doing this is because they have an untenable business model, and the company is run by morons (and yes I speak from personal experience).
For the only upside, take a look at their stock price -- it's hovering just above the penny-stock range, down from the mid $40's. It looks like they probably won't be around much longer, thank god.
Felten v RIAA (Score:3)
Since the editors seem to think that the /. crowd wouldn't be interested.
Re:My company felt the wrath of IPIX (Score:3)
Re:I know (Score:3)
What I don't understand is how they want to force their patents in Europe
Check out the "Hague Convention". This is stuff to be afraid of. Signing countries will enforce foreign judgements!l [cptech.org]
http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/hague.htm
Re:I know (Score:3)
the IPIX patent will probably not hold in court, because (apparently) other people have developed similar techniques on their own. The point is that they have more money than you. Therefore they will sue you untill you are broke. And then they win.
The sad thing really is that patent laws were created to protect the little man-with-good-idea against the BigCompany. This has taken 1 180deg spin here (hmmm how ironic)
The "We Must Defend Ourselves" Defence (Score:4)
Patents are granted monopolies in exchange for full declaration the invention.
Those holding patents often realise that there is more money to be made licensing the patent to other companies as this tends to make their technocology wider used and a small peice of a huge pie is better than all of a tiny one. This is why Dolby are so successful, for a fee and a balanced royalty anyone can play with their stuff and thus, many do.
There is No Legal Reason why any company holding software patents cannot license them to anyone they like for or without a fee and for this precise reason Bruce Perens et al are trying to get IBM and HP to set a 'social precident' for software companies to not sue free software developers for patent infringement.
IPIX are doing themselves no favours here, if they had the foresight their monotonous press releases suggest ("IPIX, the world leader in..." play another record!), they'd allow free software folk to improve their ideas (they still own the patent underneigth and can make a killing licensing the whole shebang to camera producers).
If you have more to gain by co-operating, and less to lose by calming the legal dept down, do it! Otherwise you'll just find many of those you most want to embrace IPIX stuff won't touch it with a barge pole. They already seem to prefer the other method of stitching images together to get panoramas.
Cluetrain [cluetrain.com] anyone?
GPhoto [gphoto.org] - Free Digital Camera Software
IPIX didn't do this . . . (Score:4)
I do not want to comment on your questions but want to emphasize that no one has yet accused PTViewer of infringing any patents. There are many viewers out there which use similar technology and I am not aware of any ipix patent that could possibly apply.
[snip]
Another point: I did not receive the warning from ipix but from a person who is currently being treated by them and their lawyers. I am not authorized to mention details. I hope there is no immediate danger, neither for him nor for us, but it makes sense to be cautious, hence the proposed changes.
prior art? (Score:4)
---
Patents valid by default (Score:4)
Courts PRESUME any patent which is granted is valid. The plantiff has to prove infringement, but if he does, than the defendant needs to prove the patent is invalid to win. The plaintiff does NOT have to prove anything about the validity, it is considered valid by default because it has been so carefully (hah!) reviewed by the patent office. (i.e. they glance at the title, and make sure it is paid for before rubber stamping it).
Disclaimer: This is not legal advice.
IPIX - at it again (Score:4)
IPIX has been involved in several tangled intellectual-property disputes. In '97, IPIX went after the Live Picture Corporation for patent infringement, and eventually secured an out-of-court settlement resulting in Live Picture's agreement to stop using fisheye lenses.
IPIX was also the defendant in a March 2000 patent infringement suit involving alleged willful infringement of U.S. patent 5,903,782 concerning "spherical visual technology".
If anyone is interested, I threw up a page [cptech.org] a while back that contains more information about IPIX-related intellectual property disputes.
Sincerely,
Vergil
Vergil Bushnell
More information... (Score:5)
I dug up a quote of Dan Slaters from http://vr.albury.net.au/~kathyw/EyePics/slater.tx
Infuriating. (Score:5)
Prior-Art exists for the patents that they are trying to enforce... someone should step in (EFF? O'Reilly?) and challenge these patents.
For now, we can make an impact on IPIX... boycott them!
Also, check out http://vr.albury.net.au/~kathyw/EyePics/ [albury.net.au] or http://www.virtualproperties.com/noipix/noipix.ht
Sorry I'm not more coherent, but this really pisses me off.
Re:I know (Score:5)
This is a persistant myth.
The patent laws were created for one purpose -- to promote progress by encouraging the disclosure of inventions. Patent laws are not, and never were intended to "protect the little guy."
What about NASA? (Score:5)
Re:What kind of tricks? (Score:5)
The tinkers..
If you are an OSS developer... (Score:5)
Stu Roberson
iPIX
3160 Crow Canyon Road, 4th floor
San Ramon, CA 94583
ph: (925) 242.4050
Email: stu.roberson@ipix.com
Missy Acosta
Ackermann Public Relations
1111 Northshore Drive, Suite N-400
Knoxville, TN 37917-4046
Phone: (865) 584.0550
Fax:(865) 588.3009
Email: macosta@ackermannpr.com
Cathy Hay
Morgen-Walke
380 Lexington Ave
New York, NY
Phone: (212) 850-5679
Email: chay@morgenwalke.com
My company felt the wrath of IPIX (Score:5)
It's a shame to see creativity online stifled by overly restrictive business practices by those online. Our company has been forced to use more traditional offerings for our site- mediocrity is now being prescribed by unnecessary and unjust patents enforced by the legal systems of the world.
iluvpr0n. (really)
The math they use is clearly public domain (Score:5)
They are bluffing. This is known art, and they know it. Call them on it.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. Still annoyed by their audacity, if you can't tell.