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 <tksharpl...@gmail.com> 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 hugin-ptx@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to hugin-ptx+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx
