Have you already published the math involved? If so, then that would
amount to "prior art" I would think. I'm not a patent lawyer, but I
understand that the existence of prior art would prevent anyone else
from obtaining a patent on it.
On the other hand if you *don't* formally claim ownership, then I
guess you'd pretty much have no say about how it was used... it
essentially would become public domain. Which you might feel OK about
if the Hugin project used it, but could get to feeling a little grumpy
if "JVC" or "Adobe" managed to figure a way to *profit* from it!
eo
On Jul 29, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Thomas Sharpless wrote:
You may have heard rumors that I am planning to patent the Panini
projection. That is not strictly true, but as I do hope to do
something like it, I thought I should make my position clear to the
group. I sincerely hope this doesn't start one of those long
fruitless discussions about the morality/legality/feasibility of
software patents.
I'm well aware that a patent is one of the least effective ways of
"protecting" software, and that no patent is likely to generate any
income without a viable product to go with it. However I would hate
to see the Panini projection become the "property" of Adobe or some
other commercial interest, which could happen if they patent an
application of it before anyone else does. So earlier this year I
filed a "preliminary patent application" with the USPTO, describing
the panini-general algorithm (as published in libpano13) and three
plausible applications, realized by different combinations of
hardware and software. A preliminary application is just a way of
establishing priority, and cannot result in a patent. Its main
purpose is to support later normal patent applications, and it is
valid for just 1 year. As far as I know this type of application
has no standing in the E.U. or Britain.
So the idea is to apply for proper U.S. patents on some specific
uses of the Panini projection -- at least one of them commercially
viable -- before next Spring. That will involve hiring a good
patent attorney, which can cost a significant amount of money, and
possibly other legal costs such as setting up a corporation or
foundation to manage the patent rights. So I don't want to do it
unless and until there is at least a fair prospect of selling
something. Those patents would not claim protection for the Panini
projection as such, which is probably not patentable anyhow, but
would hopefully make it hard for others to patent or sell similar
applications of it. And they might conceivably earn Bruno and me a
bit of royalty income.
In case any such patents are granted, it is my firm intention to
issue blanket free licenses covering any and all uses of the
"protected" technology in open source software that is licensed
under GPL Version 3 (and any compatible free software licenses).
That can apparently be made perfectly legal, even in the greedy
U.S., as IBM and Red Hat have done with a large pool of software
patents they own. Bruno assures me he would not object to having
his name on a patent licensed that way, and as he really discovered
the Panini projection I think it should be there.
It is important for this strategy that ownership of the basic
patents stays in the hands of a reliable organization unlikely to be
taken over by "patent trolls" (as Ipix and SCO so sadly were).
Hence the foundation idea. But any seriously money-making
application would almost certainly have to be covered by additional
patents owned outright by a manufacturer (otherwise nobody would
want to build it). For example let's say JVC decides to offer an
ultra-wide angle video camera based on the Panini projection. They
would absolutely want Canon et al not to be able to do the same, and
would no doubt apply for several patents on the technology. The
trick for keeping the software free is to have the "Panini
foundation" be in a position to sell them an exclusive license for
some key elements of the video processor, that is limited, say, to
in-camera video processors and would not preclude licensing someone
else to use the same technology for rendering movies in a post-
production facility. Then JVC can patent the hell out of their
camera without infringing the right of Hugin users to use panini-
general.
I'm sure the trick is doable, but it clearly needs both good legal
preparation and good management of the patent rights. Which in turn
need to be sustained by some revenue. So it won't happen unless I
can actually find some customers who want to build and sell Panini-
based products. If I were 20 years younger I'd probably try to
start a company to make TV and movie rendering software (and
probably lose my shirt) but as it is, someone else is going to have
to do that. If any of you wants to volunteer, or knows how to sell
new technology to TV or movie producers (or JVC Corporation, for
that matter) I would be happy to hear about it.
Regards, Tom
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Hugin and other free panoramic software" group.
A list of frequently asked questions is available at:
http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hugin and
other free panoramic software" group.
A list of frequently asked questions is available at:
http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
