Re: 360 degree video real time... interested?

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"z" wrote:

> I have developed product to fit on cams such as x10 [or any
> other] that caputures and  displays realtime 360 video.

I think the first thing you need to do is a patent search.  360 degree
technology has been around for a  while.  There's most likely considerable
"prior art" in existence making the patenting of such a device impossible.
There's a brief article that discusses prior art in non-lawyer sort of way:

Considering What Constitutes Prior Art in the United States
(from the Journal of  The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society.)
www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9106.html

They say: "a person is not entitled to a patent if the invention was "known
or used by others in this country, or was patented or described in a printed
publication in this or a foreign country" before the date of invention by
the applicant for the patent.

I see an awful lot of potential prior art with this Google search:

http://www.google.com/search?q=360%22+camera+lens+attachment

which leads to, among others, these sites:

http://www.0-360.com/camera.asp

(and some nice photos here:)

http://www.0-360.com/gallery.asp

http://www.macworld.com/2002/10/reviews/panorama/

And then there's IPIX Corporation who sells "Digital equipment and software
for the creation of spinning 360-degree panoramas" www.ipix.com

It may not matter whether you can build a device much cheaper if your
cheaper method infringes on the existing patents awarded to the inventors of
these technologies.  At this stage, only you or your patent attorney knows
enough about your system to know whether it relies on some sort of principle
that neither in current use nor patented by someone else.  The first step is
usually a patent search.  If you're lucky enough to have hit on something
totally new, then you just have the typical rock-strewn, avalanche-prone,
twisting uphill road that awaits most inventors. I don't think any venture
capitalists would consider financing your idea unless you had the results of
a prior arts patent search.

The site that Bruce Robin suggested gives some interesting statistics about
the financial outcomes of a small subset of US inventors.

http://www.inventorsdigest.com/ME2/Default.asp

Says:

    ? 49% of inventors who ?self-manufactured? realized modest
     or substantial profits. (Self-manufacturing was defined as
     ?actually setting up one?s own factory and being responsible
    for complete fabrication of the product.?)

    ? 13% of inventors who tried to license their patent rights
     realized modest or substantial profits.

It's clear that if you make and market your own invention, you've got a
better shot at success than if you try to shop your idea around to a
manufacturer.  I've got some quibble about the study methodology used in the
article and recommend that you remember this is all self-report data.
People almost never under-report their own success.  Here's a tale of how
that trip along the rocky road of inventing can work out:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/23/business/23medronic.html

Medtronic to Pay $1.35 Billion to Inventor
By ANDREW POLLACK

Published: April 23, 2005

LOS ANGELES, April 22 - Medtronic Inc., the medical device maker, said on
Friday that it would pay $1.35 billion to a surgeon turned inventor to gain
ownership of patents related to spinal surgery and to settle litigation
between them.

A federal jury ruled last fall that Medtronic should pay $559 million to the
inventor, Dr. Gary K. Michelson, and his company, Karlin Technology.

Medtronic said on Friday that it would pay $550 million to settle the
lawsuit and another $800 million to acquire the patents. The deal will also
give Medtronic rights to virtually all the spine-related inventions Dr.
Michelson makes in the next 15 years.

(Article continued at NY Times site - free, but registration required.  This
doctor became an inventor because his large hands scared his patients!)

--
Bobby G.