proj-imim:
Re: Site closed, and changes
Ignacio Ferrando Margelí 2001-Jun-04 19:26:11
Hello all,
One thing I can not understand is how IPIX can know what is the method I
used to make our equirectangular images???
If I have a Qt5 cube in my web page it could be made from fisheyes or
rectilinear lens...same if I use PtViewer to see it...
where is the problem???
I hope that here in europe, at least in spain, the lawers have many work
and don't accept waste their time with stupidities "made in USA"
regards
--
Ignacio Ferrando Margelí
http://www.abaco-digital.com
976297980
Zaragoza
On 4/6/01 18:36, "Helmut Dersch" <#removed#> wrote:
>
>
> Richard Moore schrieb:
>>
>> ...same experience viewers have today with
>> Helmut's PTViewer. So which party would be infringing in
>> this case?
>>
>
> 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.
>
> ipix is after users of fisheye lenses (in connection
> with VR). These may or may not be PTViewer users at
> the same time. PTViewer displays the same images as the
> Smoothmove viewer, LivePicture viewer, VRML-viewers and
> QTVR-viewer. Are all these viewers infringing ipix patents?
> There are public records of ipix officials who admit
> that spherical viewers per se (in this case the cubic QTVR-viewer)
> do not infringe ipix patents.
>
> As to fisheye lenses: The ipix patents mentioning
> fisheye lenses explicitely refer to 'hemispherical'
> images, ie having 180 degree fov. In the US they
> tried to extend this description to any fisheye lens,
> and failed (Sometimes, the legal system does work).
> I am planning to limit fisheye processing in the next PanoTools
> to 160 degree, which covers full frame lenses, and
> hopefully 8mm/D1 combos. I will also publish the sources
> for those who want to build unlimited versions.
>
> This is meant to provide some security to PanoTools-
> users and myself. In this case there is no way that
> ipix could attack someone just for using the software.
>
> 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.
>
> Regards
>
> Helmut Dersch