PanoTools mailing list archive

Mailinglist:proj-imim
Sender:Caroling
Date/Time:2001-May-01 23:19:47
Subject:[Fwd: Dizzycity & IPIX patent]

Thread:


proj-imim: [Fwd: Dizzycity & IPIX patent] Caroling 2001-May-01 23:19:47
I'm not sure if the patent would apply to members of this list. But it
seems to apply to VR tours on the Internet.

This is from the QuickTime VR list. But here is the basis of the discussion:

>>>  http://www.dizzycity.com/ny/corporatebackgrounder.asp
>>>  They say:
>>>  DizzyCity is patenting the concept of a navigable virtual-reality 
>>>city-scape
>  > on the Internet

I've taken out the email addresses to protect the authors. I hope this
is the right way to do it. 

Hello all
I have been through the process of filling a patent, writing claims, 
and receiving a patent. I am not a patent attorney, but have worked 
with one, and have read a very thorough book "Patent it Yourself" 
written by a patent attorney. here are some things you may be 
interested in.

If the patent is still in the patent office and has not issued yet 
(it is pending), the best way to put a stop  the patent is to make 
the patent office aware of the prior uses of the same thing that 
Dizzycity is trying to patent. if anyone sends in a VR of an outdoor 
setting and the date it was created (as long as the VR has a date 
earlier than the first document Dizzycity can produce documenting 
their idea), that should render the patent obvious -making it non 
patentable.

If anyone wants to do something about this concern, do it now. once 
the patent is issued, I think that someone would have to file a huge 
lawsuit challenging the patent- and that would be expensive. Who 
would do that. Right now it is up to a patent examiner whether to 
issue the patent or not.

The patent process
With a patent application, the applicant is supposed to notify the 
patent office of all similar ideas to their idea. they call this 
"Prior art". If the patent office is not aware of any prior art, they 
will likely grant the patent -if it meets the criteria of a 
patentable idea, and this appears to be a patentable idea. The patent 
examiner is supposed to perform their own search of prior art, but if 
the examiner is not well versed in the topic or is not willing or 
lacks the time to do a search in the area, they may not know about 
the prior art.

If any of you want to do something about the patent, I suggest that 
you contact the patent office, find out which examiners or groups of 
examiners handle the concept of "a navigable virtual-reality 
city-scape on the internet". then let them know of the earliest 
example you know of. You must document it. they must be able to see 
some example and the date of the idea or creation.


A second way the patent can be rejected is if the idea is an obvious 
extention of any idea in the area. That is - if if would be obvious 
to a knowledgeable person in this area of expertise, it is not 
patentable. Two of the patent rules are that the idea must be 1. 
Novel, and that it must be 2. Unobvious

Novelty
does the idea have an aspect that is different in any way from all 
previous inventions and knowledge (prior art).

Unobviousness
can the invention be regarded as unobvious from the standpoint of 
someone who has ordinary skill in the specific technology involved in 
the invention. -does it provide one or more new and unexpected 
results?

The other requirements of patentability are that it must fall within 
one of their classes - this one is a process (process, machine, 
manufacture, Composition, or new use of one of the first four), and 
it must be useful - this is of course useful for all kinds of things.

SOOOO....
act now. once the patent is granted, ... well, you've seen what IPIX 
did once their patent was granted.
A patent gives them the right to sue anyone who infringes upon their patent.
>
>I agree. This is outrageous. But I think there is a way to challenge
>patent applications. (Although it may have to wait until it is
>granted, and then be challenged at that point) Maybe somebody on the
>list knows?
>
>(John) wrote:
>>  I think the propaganda page on Dizzycity.com was referring to 
>>IPIX's patent on
>>  their version of VR photography, not the tours of cities.
>>
>No. They are not referring to a 3rd party patent.
>
>The page on their site listed below specifically says:
>
>"DizzyCity is patenting the concept of a navigable virtual-reality
>city-scape on the Internet."
>
>Or, in other words, DizzyCity is patenting the concept of a navigable
>virtual-reality city-scape on the Internet.
>
>Does anyone have any idea how to submit comments on pending patent
>applications in the USA?
>
>
>>>  On their Corporate Background page at:
>>>  http://www.dizzycity.com/ny/corporatebackgrounder.asp
>>>  They say:
>>>  DizzyCity is patenting the concept of a navigable virtual-reality 
>>>city-scape
>  > on the Internet.



Next thread:

Previous thread:

back to search page