On Sunday, July 27, 2003, at 04:31 PM, Danilo Jurisich wrote:
pardon me if I don't understand this fully, I'm sure I don't.
Isn't Oxaal undermining his own (also seemingly dubious) patent here
as well with this argument?
Aren't they essentially the same patent and Oxaal argued that he came
up with it first?
Both parties involved in this suit are using U.S. patent laws, and
various other grounds for suit, to increase their personal fortunes.
In my opinion this whole "fisheye-and-spherical-VR" witch-hunt is due
to a publicly held company (IPIX) trying to rescue its perceived stock
value by suing any individual (conspicuously Not other public co.'s
with more lawyers) who tries to compete with them, either fiscally or
intellectually. Mr. Oxaal seems to be the only individual willing and
capable of playing by the quasi-legal "rules of engagement" that IPIX
has set out. ("Suit / counter-suit" ...ad nauseum.)
Neither IPIX nor Oxaal/MEV has any claim to image remapping or fisheye
VR technology. However, they realize that the only viable way to
deliver these VRs *for immediate profit* is through the web, which they
both are trying to claim in the broadest terms possible. The intent
here is, of course, to be in a position to sit back and watch the
royalties roll in "when web VR really takes off." Neither party has
revolutionized web VR, but they expect that others will and that they
will cash in. (Oxaal is really only legally defending himself, but I'm
sure his reasons are not purely altruistic.)
All of this creates a business atmosphere for image-based VR that keeps
major players (Macromedia, Adobe, Apple, MS) from getting involved due
to legal expenses and bad shareholder press, and it keeps small players
(Dr. Dersch, open source, and your-name-here) from even getting
started. In other words, the business plan of
"lawsuit-to-protect-stock-value" has kept innovation at a standstill
and only encourages the broader consumer market to look for some other
way of "experiencing a location or environment."
Sadly, the only people really making money off of this are the lawyers
who encourage this behavior in the U.S. and abroad.
By the time this whole legal witch-hunt is over, I will have perfected
my "Palantir" spherical CCD (no optics!) and content creators can toss
a ball in the air and deliver realtime views of their world through
whatever viewing appliance is the current standard. ;-)
-Mark
At 12:22 AM -0700 7/27/03, Ken Turkowski wrote:
On Friday, July 25, 2003, at 10:01 PM, Michael Quan
<email@hidden> wrote:
In its defense, MEV has presented irrefutable evidence that there is
no unfair competition and that the patent in suit (Re. 36,207) is
invalid, unenforceable, and not infringed on numerous grounds,
including: immunity from suit, anticipation (prior art), improper
inventorship, inequitable conduct (including fraud in procurement),
non-enablement, failure to disclose best mode, and inadequate
written description, the result of which is expected to render the
entire iPIX patent portfolio unenforceable.
_______________________________________________
quicktime-vr mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/quicktime-vr
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
