proj-imim:
Re: Site closed, and changes
Richard Moore 2001-Jun-04 04:12:14
R S Haan wrote:
> OK someone correct me if I'm wrong,
> but too infringe on a patent you have to do the
> whole process. So if Helmut stops distributing a viewer
> with his stitcher he would no longer be infringing even if they do get
> their patent in Europe.
> Remapping fisheyes too rectilinear images was around before IPIX
> right.
IANAL, but...
I was thinking the same thing. If IPIX patents a process
requiring steps A and B to convert and display panoramic
images, and someone develops software to do step A, that
person would not be infringing. And if someone develops
software to do step B, that would not be infringing
either. Of course somebody who takes these two pieces
of non-infringing software and combines them is certainly
at risk of IPIX legal harrassment.
But what if the software for step B became available as
plug-ins for Netscape, IE, and other browsers. Then the
users of the step A software could post their panoramas on
their websites, still without infringing, and anyone who
visited these sites who had the viewer plug-ins installed
would have the same experience viewers have today with
Helmut's PTViewer. So which party would be infringing in
this case?
Oh, but this is patent law, so it doesn't have to be logical.
It seems it would be too late for IPIX to get a patent
to cover just step A, or to cover just step B, even if
there were no prior art, since they have been marketing
their process for several years (IIRC there is a time limit
of one year from first commercial availability of an
invention to apply for a patent; this is probably different
in Europe from USA, however).
Many thanks to Helmut for his software, and I hope these
legal problems can be overcome in the near future.
-- Richard