Slashdot Log In
IPIX persecutes free software developer
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun May 30, 1999 09:46 AM
from the doncha-hate-when-that-happens? dept.
from the doncha-hate-when-that-happens? dept.
Ellen Spertus writes "Interactive Pictures Corporation (IPIX) has been threatening anyone who distributes software to create 360 degree panorama images, including free software developer Helmut Dersch. While Dersch's free tools (including a Gimp plug-in) are back online, he has had to remove information about creating high-quality panoramas. Meanwhile, IPIX, which charges $25 per panorama created, is preparing for its IPO. Read all about it. If you haven't seen 360 degree panoramas (outside of RL), take a look at Virtual Parks (requires free plug-in) or Sydney Olympics 2000 panoramas (requires free plug-in or Java). "
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
IPIX persecutes free software developer
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 147 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Hmm... Wonder if the press would be interested... (Score:3)
Federal Register: Notice of Public Hearing on Prio (Score:3)
"SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking comments to obtain views of the public on issues associated with the identification of prior art during the examination of a patent application. Interested members of the public are invited to testify at the hearing and to present written comments on any of the topics
outlined in the supplementary information section of this notice."
Talk about timing.
mmh... sounds like QTVR (Score:5)
Is it because they are giving it for free that they are complaining... In that case they just have to add more value to their product to make it competitive. And besides, just like someone was saying earlier... How would microsoft woul;d look with IE in a setting like that...
So I think this stinks and their request is totally stupid... or maybe they should be more precise on what is their problem exactly...
Caus eight now, they look like idiots to me...
Re: IPIX vs. Live Picture (Score:5)
QuickTime VR and most other panoramic technologies stitch together a bunch of flat pictures into a 360 degree pano. These panos have "holes" where the top and bottom are - you can't look straight up or down.
IPIX uses fisheye lenses so that they can get a complete pano with two photos, plus you can look up and down.
Now, Live Picture's PhotoVista used to do that as well, but IPIX threatened us with some ridiculous claim of a billion $ damages. Our research into the history of fisheye images made us confident that their patent had no basis - most don't thanks to the morons in the patent office. Unfortunately, we couldn't afford to defend ourselves - it might have meant a temporary injunction against selling our product. Also, fisheye panos usually have lower quality because the distorion, while easy to correct in theory, is not that easy in real life (no lens is perfect).
Mirror of the original threatening letter (Score:5)
The most interesting thing is IPIX's belief that it "owns the copyright in the format it utilises", and that therefore it has a share of the copyright of the data-file of any image in that format, which it can use to restrict how that data-file is used.
From Dersch's (IMHO) staggeringly mild and reasonable summary [fh-furtwangen.de] of the story so far, it appears that they are still trying to push this claim, which is like Microsoft claiming copyright and distribution rights over every document in Word format.
In this case we might be lucky because IPIX didn't invent the format.
But think of (say) the MPAA claiming such a veto on any file using their new music format. In fact, under the new laws against script-kiddies even describing such formats might become actionable, as abetting the theft of copyright content.
This is a nasty can of worms and it's important for all of us that Dersch sees off IPIX with no compromises.
Re:Let's just develop a better standard! (Score:5)
Like MIP-maps in 3d games, depending on your distance from an object, a server supplies a suitably scaled version.
This is not just applicable to panaoramas, bnut any type of 2D (and perhaps 3D) image data.
This works on a 'tile-based' system, where the image is broken down into a set of tiles, say 100 x 100 pixels each.
A set of 'zoom levels' are also created, also broken into 100 x 100 tiles, you might have a 2500 x 2500 pixel version, a 1000 x 1000 version, a 500 x 500 version and a 250 x 250 version. Depending on how 'far away' the viewer is from the image, the server sends the appropriate tiles.
i.e. if your original image is 5000 x 5000 pixels, and your viewing window is 320 x 200 pixels, the server figures out which 'tiles' it needs to send to the client to fill the viewport, and does so. If you move the viewport, a new set of tiles are sent. This means the client app never needs to download the full 5000 x 5000 image.
If the user wants to see the full image through his 320 x 200 viewport, he can zoom out, but the server then simply suppplies all the tiles from the 250 x 250 zoom level, so that 320 x 200 pixels are the maximum that ever need to get sent over the network. Client side caching of tiles would of course speed up this process.
This information (zoom levels etc.) are all encapsulated within a single file, with options for static serving (all 'zoom levels' present in the file, leading to a larger file on the server end) or dynamic serving, where the server calculates the appropriate zoom and tile settings depending on the image and the client viewport size.
I suggest we need a GNU Image Server capable of using Wavelet, JPEG and any other file format described by some kind of plugin architecture.
This would mean Linux could become the premier platform for the presentation of scanned documents, photographic images etc. If there was a standard, free API and tools for this kind of thing, all sorts of neat, bandwidth-friendly apps could be created.
I'm not much of a coder, but i think i understand what sort of stuff we need here. Its possible an existing open standard for this sort of thing exists (i remember seeing an article about something by Xerox similar to this)
Regards
-Pete
peterb@actrix.gen.nz
Uses of panoramic views (Score:4)
The arguement appears to be about the usage of a file format, which I consider to be less important than the technique, but still brain dead.
Time to Create Bad Press (Score:5)
Well, we could either drag this whole thing through an extended court procedure to blow off their somewhat simple-minded insistance that they alone have World Domination of the 360-degree photo market, or:
We could create a whole lot of bad press for them, watch investors treat them like lepers, see their IPO fail miserably and their company crash, the execs lose their jobs and their children forced to sell pencils on the street to stave off starvation.
Personally, I prefer the second course of action. Talk about a shot heard 'round the world. We could do it, too -- the same way that FUD doesn't work against the OSS community, we can raise a stink about idiotic corporations like this one.
----
Working from the other direction (Score:3)
I went to the IPIX web site this morning, and I took a look at the companies that they cite as being 'happy customers' and who generally user 'their' technique to sell product.
I noticed one of the companies was an aircraft manufacturer.
My flying school has one of the aircraft made by that manufacturer.
So I rang my flying school. I said "Because you use brand-x aircraft, and brand-x financially supports IPIX, I'm not going to fly with you any more". Whammo, thats a $600.00 per month hit in their pockets.
Then I rang the brand-x Aircraft company and said "Because you use a product from IPEX corporation, and my flying school uses your aircraft, I've cancelled my lessons with my flying school, and I'm taking my business elsewhere".
Now you can bet your arse the Cheif Pilot at my flying school rang brand-x aircraft company and
said "what the fsck is it with this IPEX mob?"
I'll be checking the list again tomorrow, and calling the other manufacturers of goods and services that I use and are on IPEX's list...
There's more than one way to skin a cat...
(By the way, this is in no way supposed to be a judgement on the Eagle Aircraft company or the excellent Eagle 150 aeroplane. It's just my way of digging at IPEX from the other end of the food chain...)
A comment from a active pano shooter... (Score:5)
The comment from a LivePicture person is pretty interesting and suggests that IPIX is aggressively trying to use their (imho) overly broad 8mm lens software patents to prevent competitors from offering spherical solutions.
While 90% of the time regular cylindrical panoramas are ideal for capturing the essence of a place, there are a number of situations where a spherical panorama would show additional things of interest. For instance, a cave, under a forest canopy, an underwater scene, or bizarre points of view inside a Bryce constructed world.
Many of us who shoot a lot of photo VRs would like to have the flexibility to shoot either spherical or cylindrical. But there is no way I'm going to pay $25 a panorama to publish VRs on the Web. No way I'm going to support an organization that threatens individuals like Helmut. No way I'm going to enter into an agreement not to compete with the various partners of the spherical tool-maker. Imagine if Kodak charged you a licensing fee of $20 for every roll of film you shot using Kodak's patented film? It reeks of a monopolistic world-view. That business model could only work if there were no competitors offering spherical panos without per-pano fees. Besides Helmut's excellent tools, there is now another competitor in this niche--Smoothmove is a spherical solution that allows you to shoot using 14mm or other non-fisheye lenses, and without per-pano fees.
Disclaimer: I have no connection with Smoothmove, other than wanting to see some competition in the spherical pano world (well actually I'd like to see ethical people/organizations succeed, but that's dreaming).
Moderators - score that one up! (Score:5)
The great strength of it is that you probably don't ever need to spend the money, you just have to have it. You need to be able to say "we can fight back, so it's probably not worth your while fighting us, we will both lose a lot of money but our side will win". It's ideal for a fund.
This has been proposed many times, but as yet nothing has happened. Someone the community trusts needs to stand up and say "I'll do it", the rest of us need only make donations.
--
I'm confused. This sounds like it isn't that bad (Score:3)
It seems that IPIX believes it owns the ability to limit usage of its file format, to stop people from making use of its viewer without paying royalities (which is a mistake in their marketing model). However, the tone of the page doesn't make it sounds like they are in the inquisition mode of suing all people, everywhere.
Free Software Legal Defence Fund (Score:5)
Somewhere to send the threats, and get an answer back "this is obviously groundless, we'll take care of the defence".
PS: I don't know enough about the actual case, to say whether this would be something appropriate for the free software legal defence fund.
A good angle for bad publicity (Score:3)
Re:Time to Create Bad Press (Score:5)
Here's what we can (should?) do:
We have the undivided attention of *technical* journals/'zines. Let's use the slashdot effect to write to them, encouraging them to publish an article on this. If there's a free alternative, why spend money on their IPO?
Mirror it! World governments can't seem to stop encryption simply because the "genie is out of the bottle", to quote an NSA official. Let's mirror it, and then publicize it. It's the worst thing we could do to them - make their competition's product easily accessible. It worked against microsoft, the NSA, and a plethora of other evils in the land. I don't see why we can't do it again.
But resist the urge to become personally involved. We should unilaterally take the same approach to any business that tries this: Initial publication, mirror the affected site, contact the presses, ruin their day. It's now a time-tested formula. Use it!
--
Contact Information for: IPIX (Score:5)
1-800-336-7113
sales@ipix.com [mailto]
IPIX Stockhouse Manager, Jeff Puckett
1-888-909-IPIX
stock@ipix.com [mailto]
IPIX CLIENTS
Suprisingly.. blank [ipix.com]
Maybe you'd like to talk to their investors?
Motorola [motorola.com]
Mediaone [mediaone.com]
Advance Internet
American Express [americanexpress.com]
Financial Advisors [americanexpress.com]
Cendant
General Electric
Invision
JP Morgan [jpmorgan.com]
--
The decentralized solution to this problem (Score:5)
Step 1: Locate IPIX content. Find a large amount of IPIX content on the WWW or anywhere else you can find it, and select one piece at random. By "at random" I mean RANDOMLY, not arbitarily. Generate a random number with the computer, throw a dart, etc. If your random number is "1", go with the first hit - don't say, "That's not random" and generate a second number.
Step 2: Locate the person responsible for distributing the IPIX content you have selected. Be persistent. Unless that person has gone into the Witness Protection Program, it should be possible to locate him or her. It may be easy, or it may be hard, but it should be possible. If you fail, try harder. Hire a private detective if you must, and if you can afford to.
Step 3: Once you have found the IPIX content publisher, call and politely explain what IPIX is doing, and why you believe it is a bad thing. Don't harass. If the person asks you not to call them again, your job is done.
Step 4: Return to step one as necessary, but be careful not to contact the same person twice.
This is very important: don't do anything illegal. Finding a person, calling that person, and talking politely - none of these actions are illegal. Don't take it any further. There will be no need to.
Finally, keep up with the news. If IPIX capitulates to your satisfaction, stop. Vengeance is unbecoming. If they take action which is insufficient, let IPIX know what more they must do.
legal basis? (Score:4)
Re:Free Software Legal Defence Fund (Score:5)
---------------------
Remember the LPF
by John Allsup
The organisation (or what ever there is of it these days) that was about this type of thing, is the League for Programming Freedom.
see http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/ [mit.edu]
This is also a good (in name at least) place to look as to where to start setting up such a legal fund. What WOULD be a good idea (if the funds could be generated for it) is to sort out the legal situation in as many countries as possible, and let everybody know where they stand w.r.t the law of their land (I'm a UK citizen).
-------- John Allsup email: jda570@bham.ac.uk
Felix
Free Software and Patents (Score:4)
I am curreently authoring some software that will make "Montages" (see The Linux Image Montage Project [thelinuxmart.com]), as the software I am using now has a clause in the licensing agreement that states, "this software can be in no way used for commercial purposes" (I am paraphrasing here). It would also appear that the person who invented the technique [photomosaic.com], has a patent not on the algorithm, but the look-and-feel of a Montage.
What really get's me is that photographers have been making 360 panaramas & photo montages, albeit analog ones, for years. I am suprised that just because the picture is represented by bits instead of film-grain that it makes any difference.
-AP (Jordan Husney)Re:Free Software Legal Defence Fund (Score:3)
While it is true that Microsoft has taken an interest in filing some rather onerous patents as of late. I would note that we've yet to see an litigation from these patents. Past history has show us that Microsoft's use of patents have been defensive, not offensive.
In fact several times Microsoft has been the violator of a patent and actually ended up loosing.
Stop making Microsoft the enemy in fronts where they aren't. IPIX are the people that are using patents for offensive warafare, not Microsoft.
Of Patents and IPIX (Score:5)
IPIX is claiming that he violated their copyrights with regards to one of the example photos that he had on his website.
Helmet argues that he took the photo and in fact was even in the photo. However, this is not a total response to IPIX's claim as I understand it.
IPIX claims that their file format is a computer program and as such is entitled to special protection under the copyright laws. While, the information is not clear, I would imagine the supposedly offending photo was in an IPIX format, since the page that they forced him to take down was in relation to how to convert from their format.
So why is IPIX doing this? They are going after Helmet not because they have a problem with his software. While they probably don't necessarily like the fact that his software is available, what they find particularly offensive is his description of how to move from their file format.
They're doing this because their licensing structure is setup such that you must pay *PER VIEW* of their file format. So if you can easily convert away from their file format then you can easily avoid their licensing scheme.
So they aren't trying to protect their patent. They're trying to protect their licensing scheme.
IPIX lossage (Score:5)
What I'm getting at here, and this might or might not apply in this particular case, is that even if companies don't have any legal grounds for something, they can cause a lot of trouble because most of us don't have the funds or the strength to fight them in court, so it is easier to fall back and do as they ask than to stand up against them.
People have suggested having an organisation that could defend free software projects in court. However, if I've got this right (IANAL so please tell me if I'm wrong, it would make me very happy), with the current laws, only the copyright holder can acctually defend his program and it's unclear to me if some other organisations could even drive a lawsuit against the company without owning the copyright. As I understand it, thats one of the reasons why the FSF has wanted the copyright for some of its programs (like the libc, gcc, binutils, fileutils and others). If someone were to violate the GPL on these programs, it would be easy for the FSF (and for the court who doesn't have to account for a hundred different copyright holders) to prosecute the offender.
So this doesn't seem to be a situation where you can simply say, as a developer, "here; go talk to the FSF instead and don't bother me." Instead you would have to draw the lawsuit yourself and the only thing that another organisation could contribute with would probably be funds to do this. However, I don't think most people would care. Even if they did get funds for it, it would still be much too easy to fall back and live by the rules dictated by a company.
Re:Let's just develop a better standard! (Score:3)
FLF - A Free Law Foundation? (Score:3)
There must be some lawyer geeks out there who would be willing to represent persecuted open source developers in cases like these?
Part of the problem with having a trust fund for law suits would be controling its use. Someone would have to decide who was to get backing and who not. With a list of lawyers willing to represent cases for free, it would be up to them if they worked on a particular suit or not.
As a good meeting point, how about if Slashdot were to have a sign up page for lawyers? What do you think, Rob?
Precedents (Score:4)
This seems groundless, as this sort of thing has been done for years, if you look through MS's site, it shows lots of white papers on how to migrate from lotus notes to exchange, for example, and excel can import various non MS formats.
However, if this stands, it could set a nasty precedent, imagine if gnumeric or koffice were not allowed to have an excel import option? Or if Samba was not able to use the SMB protocol?
The possible repercissions of "you're not allowed to build an import filter for our file format unless we allow it" do not bear thinking about.
--
Let's just develop a better standard! (Score:5)
It seems to me that there's a whole mess of papers submitted at SIGGRAPH 97 (see pages 243-258) and before on the subject of creating panoramic picture anyways. IPIX cannot be "revolutionary" if researchers from Princeton, Apple, and Microsoft Research have been working on this for ages. So obviously IPIX has no precedence on the "algorithms" to create panoramic images...
As for image formats, screw 'em! There's always got to be a better format. Let them make the fatal mistake of a proprietary format, and then us free software mongers shall smite them with an OPEN standard. Thus forcing them to comply! Muhahahaha!
Any takers?
Cheers,
Stryemer
My fortune cookie read:
"You will recieve faster silicon love in your future."
-Stryemer
We are the music makers,
and we are the dreamers of the dream.
Re:Quicktime... (Score:3)
All for one and one for all (Score:5)
Re:Free Software Legal Defence Fund (Score:5)
Another, perhaps more useful, way for the OSS community to attack idiots, is to begin pooling ideas and forming a pool of patents and other intellectual property to affirmatively assert as counterclaims in defense of mind-loss lawsuits.
In the "real world," the threat of a lawsuit is often met with a portfolio of IP in return. "Sure, sue me if you like, and you'll be embroiled in litigation as a defendant until HFO." Cross-licensing makes the lawyers go away, and that is the end of many marginal cases.
To the extent that OSS community *is* being creative, it would do well to begin securing protection for its inventions, if not to assert against third parties, at least to use as fodder for cross-licensing in defense of others. (The existence of a solid portfolio of technology can also effectively rebut the FUDdy allegation that OSS is primarily derivative work.)
Another idea, though this is far more controversial: A provision that nobody seemed to like in Apple's latest OSS license was the "sue me for IP if you like, but you lose your license to any Apple OSS" provision. Wouldn't it be nice for future corporations who sue Open Source providers to place at risk forever their right to use Linux? Perhaps a "sue-and-autolose" policy is overreaching and impractical, but how about a "sue the OSS if you think you can win, but if you lose, you lose all OSS rights forever" view?
Re:Free Software Legal Defence Fund (Score:3)
Seriously, companies like IPIX prefer to go after the little fish, victims that simply don't have the money and time to defend themselves properly in court. Sometimes it's just to strengthen their case for when they have to go up against bigger fish.
A defence fund has more advantages than just pooling money. It means you can get a house attorney speciallized in this type of case. You can also setup a PR machine that can quickly get the word out that IPIX is a bunch of shitheads, that their licencing agreement is very restrictive, and that their are free alternatives to their software.
http://www.iqtvra.org/noipix.html (Score:4)
http://www.iqtvra.org/noipix.html
http://www.virtualproperties.com/noipix/noipix.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/05/30/144
What IPIX forced him to remove.. (Score:5)
Some information was taken down... (Score:5)
Personally, while I understand IPIX has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders (yes, it has some, even though it's not publicly offered yet) to protect the value of its intellectual property, this one's gone just a little too far.
--
Am i missing something here???? (Score:4)