All quotations from the patent are intended to be accurate, but I urge anyone reading to spend the US$3.00 to download and print a PDF copy from IBM's web site and draw your own conclusions:

http://www.patents.ibm.com/details?pn=US05877801__

__________________________________________________________________
Hello again.

I am now very concerned.

It is urgent that you and "our" Patent Attorney read IPIX Patent 5,877,801 granted on March 9, 1999.


It would appear that this could be read to cover ALL kinds of lenses and lens systems (not excluding BeHere and reflections from spheres -- neither specifically mentioned, or any other method of imaging a "wide angle view").

It would appear that this patent could be read to include the method and process employed by Apple's QuickTime VR system. 

If I'm right about THIS, then at this very moment IPIX is negotiating with Apple, attempting to force them to license the IPIX "technology."  This  *could*  be the source of a cryptic comment I receive from an IPIX marketing person at MacWorld in January.  Paraphrasing, when I complained about their apparent lock on spherical capture and fisheye lenses and that I worked with QTVR, I was told to be patient and that "I think you'll like what you see."  Egad!!
__________________________________________________________________

Note that this patent, on page 2, includes a long list of other patents and "other publications."  I presume this is some sort of due diligence regarding what might be Prior Art.  Interestingly, a similar section is not present in patent 5,185,667.

In this patent and in number 5,185,667 there is continual reference to a "180" degree view and "partial spherical image[s]," not FULL sphere views.  And I don't see any reference to "stitching," or in any way combining MULTIPLE images comprising a narrower field of view into one comprising a larger or full sphere field of view.  I of course don't know if this is significant or not.

There appears to be a typo or some missing words in Section 4, near line 7.  The sentence doen't make sense as it reads.


The "loophole" I saw in patent 5,185,667 is removed in patent 5,877,801: 

     "The invention of that patent was envisioned as being primarily a unitary
       system in that all components were located in close proximity.

      There are applications, however... where there is a substantial distance between
      where the initial image occurs and the location where the perspectively-corrected
      views are to be utilized."

      (Section 1, near lines 51-64)

     "It is another object of the present invention to provide for the generation of a wide
      angle image at one location and for the transmission of a signal corresponding to that
      image to another location, with the received transmission being processed so as to
      provide a perspective-corrected view of any selected portion of that image at
      the other location."

      (Section 2, near lines 19-24)

This would seem easily to be describing the method used in QTVR capture and display.  Where the initial image occurs (and is captured on film or some other storage media) at one location, then transported to another location, processed (using QTVRAS or PanoTools, or...) then utilized at a location remote from the source (on the Web or a CD-ROM or...)


Although there is extensive use of the terms "fisheye" and "180 degree view" they also take care not to limit their claim ONLY to such things.  For example:

      "...there is provided a video camera at a first location, with that camera having
       a wide field of view lens, such as a fisheye lens...."  (Section 2, near lines 47-49)

      "One embodiment of the present invention is illustrated generally at 10 of FIG 1...."
      "Situated at the remote site 12 is a wide angle lens 16 such as a "fisheye" lens...."
      "Typically the lens is an 8mm F2.8 lens as manufactured by Nikon...."

      (Section 3, near lines 34-45)

This would seem easily to encompass images from fisheye lenses OTHER than an "8mm F2.8 Nikon," such as any of the full-frame fisheye lenses.  I don't see what prevents them from claiming that this covers RECTILINEAR lenses also.  In a similar situation, a wide angle rectilinear lens will also present distortion that must be corrected.

    "Although certain citations to commercially available equipment are made herein, there
      is no intent to limit the invention by these citations.  Rather, any limitations of the
      present invention is by the appended claims and their equivalents."


This patent also includes compression and decompression of the image.

      "...an image compression circuit at the first site for compressing the output signals of
       the camera imaging system prior to transmission and an image decompression circuit
       at the second site for decompressing the compressed signals.

     (Section 8, near lines 47-51)

More disturbingly broad claims:

     "...further comprising the step of analog to digital conversion of said output signals
      at the second and third sites prior to storage."

     "A computer-readable storage medium for selectively displaying a selected portion
     of a spherical image...."

     (Section 9, near lines 64-66 and Section 10 near lines 1-3)

This would seem to cover either capture of the image with a digital camera, or capture of the image on film, to be later scanned ("analog to digital conversion").  Of course, QuickTime VR movies ARE held in "A computer-readable storage medium," from which selected portions of the image are displayed.
____________________________________________________________________

A general comment I wish a Patent Attorney could address: 

I am just baffled by this.  In both this patent and 5,185,667 everything I read seems to be an  IDEA  (which I thought was something than could not be patented). 

They describe the idea of capturing a wide angle image, then remapping a selected portion of it to "normal" perspective.  They describe the idea that this image could be generated from a fisheye or other wide angle lens.  They describe the idea of being able to control which portion of the image is selected for display.  They describe the idea that multiple regions could be extracted from the same image data and displayed simultaneously at separate locations.  They describe the idea of separating the image acquisition (capture) event from the display in time or space.  They describe the idea of compressing the image data before transmission and the option of converting it from analog to digital.  The describe the idea of capturing, transmitting and remapping images in a rapid enough succession that real time video rates (30 frames per second) could be achieved.  (As an aside, this something I immediately saw as obvious when I saw the first BeHere lens.) 

Now, a company could assemble a specific turnkey system to achieve these ideas, and I could see how THAT could be patented.  They could, for example, construct a uniquely designed lens system and that could be patented.  They could create unique algorithms for compressing the image, selecting the region of interest, dewarping (remapping) the image, storing, transmitting and displaying the image, etc.

But someone ELSE could be able to achieve the same effect with a DIFFERENT DESIGN.  They could create their OWN lens design, their OWN algorithms, etc.  This would not infringe on the first company's patent. 

WHAT  HAS  IPIX  INVENTED ??  They can't patent the  IDEA  of using a fisheye lens to capture images.  Can they patent the idea or method of using math to remap from one projection system to another (isn't there Prior Art in map making and many other disciplines? 

I do not understand this.


Thanks for your work!  Please keep us informed (as much as is prudent)

eo