I support any attempt to patent anything new especially if they are to be released to the public.
I recommend that the patent be very general in order to cover future patents of devices with such statements such as: "a device to do what Panini is doing". You may think that this is ridiculous but Creative Technology of Singapore(Mr. Sim), already got a patent for a device that can stitch Panoramas. You can find it in the patent search. Autopano-sift algorith is patented by University of Columbia(?) but this University does not take agressive steps in preventing people from using and experimenting with it. Of course, it is different if it were commercialised. If it makes money, that company or indiviual should contribute some to the Inventor. The same should be true for Panini. Once someone were able to exploit it commercially, then they should contribute to the inventor. Good luck on your invention. Even if the invention were rejected, it will prevent others from trying to submit similar inventions. This could be one of the noble inventions. To prevent others from using or developing a good idea for the good of humanity. It will help reduce waste in intellectual resource in duplicating work that had already been done. On Aug 2, 8:57 pm, Tom Sharpless <[email protected]> wrote: > HI all > > Eric: yes, the math is published in the paper Dan, Bruno and I wrote > for this summer's conference on Computational Aesthetics (). It is > also of course implicit in the code in libpano13, which I included in > the preliminary patent application. > > Dale and Dave: True, a blanket free license for GPLv3 open source > software would not cover PTGui or PTAssembler. But I would give them > free or cheap licenses if they think they need them. In fact Max's > projections, though visually quite similar to the Panini, use > different formulas. The compressed rectilinear projection goes back > at least to Georges Lagarde's work in 2007. I don't know but suspect > that the vedutismo in PTGui is mathematically identical to Panini > (with variable compression, as in Panini, the program). > > But the math isn't the point. I believe US patent law at any rate > focuses mainly on what it is good for, rather than how you do it. So > products that do sufficiently different useful things would be > separately patentable even if they all used the same basic math. What > I hope for is that all uses of compressed projections in panoramic > photo processing would be "public domain", while things like a Panini > rendering engine for wide angle movies would be patentable as a novel > application of the same principles. But we shall see. > > Jan: I shall take your suggestion and ask FSF for advice. > > Best, Tom > > On Jul 30, 4:55 pm, Dale Beams <[email protected]> wrote: > > > PTGui is pay, as well as PTAssembler. If Thomas owns the patent > > shouldn't he be allowed to receive royalties. Smartblend does. He's > > been gracious enough to offer it to Hugin group at no charge. > > > Dale > > > On Thu, 2010-07-29 at 18:28 -0700, DaveN wrote: > > > Is Panini the same as PTGui's Vedutismo projection and PTAssembler's > > > Equi-perspective perspective? If so, does this affect those programs > > > and the user's of those programs? > > > > Dave > > > > On Jul 29, 12:21 pm, Thomas Sharpless <[email protected]> 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
