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

["z" <rmwbsee@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Robert;
Thought provoking!
Yes, "360 pano" is dated.
Yes, Prior art does exist; thus squelching hardware patents.
I SEE MORE THAN THAT HERE; was that a pun?!
I could use it as a marketing slogan?!
O Well, What doesn't kill me;
just makes me funnier.
NIET"Z"SCHE
Ryan

PS: Lets be casual now, after all...its Saturday
Hey, does the above paragragh outline look like the bow of one of those new
cruise ships.
or is it just way too much coffee again.





"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:RdCdnbZ4AN_n4fffRVn-jA@xxxxxxxxxx
> "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.
>
>
>
>