IPIX persecutes free software developer 147
Ellen Spertus writes "Interactive Pictures Corporation (IPIX) has been threatening anyone who distributes software to create 360 degree panorama images, including free software developer Helmut Dersch. While Dersch's free tools (including a Gimp plug-in) are back online, he has had to remove information about creating high-quality panoramas. Meanwhile, IPIX, which charges $25 per panorama created, is preparing for its IPO. Read all about it. If you haven't seen 360 degree panoramas (outside of RL), take a look at Virtual Parks (requires free plug-in) or Sydney Olympics 2000 panoramas (requires free plug-in or Java). "
Re: IPIX vs. Live Picture (Score:1)
Cowardly as ever
(signed)
X
his mark
Someone should test the patent office (Score:1)
-AC
Re:It looks like the information is still there. (Score:1)
Its a very simple concept, very obvious, what IPIX is doing is a crime.
Here is some code to alter the texture of a sphere that has been planer mapped...
This code Assumes radius of sphere is 4.0f....
And scale and offset are dependant on which hemisphere you are mapping too, exmple scale=0.5 offset=0.0 when you are working with the first hemisphere on a texture mapped (0,0) to (1,1)...
for(i=0;iTVertCount;i++){
rad=(float)sqrt(point[i]->x*point[i]->x+point[i]-
if(rad>4.0){
a=1.0;
}else{
a=(double)asin(rad/4.0f)/1.570796f;
}
point->x=((point->z/rad)*a+1)*scale+offset;
point->y=-((point->y/rad)*a+1)/2);
}
Also note this could be used to create a sphere and saved to VRML for users to spin around in. Been there done that, what they are doing is a crime.
Re:A good angle for bad publicity (Score:1)
Make sure the site is mirrored first in several countries, then publicise the URLs as well and make this part of the story.
The angle should be that IPIX doesn't appear to have a leg to stand on with its patent claims, and that the open source developer has performed a valuable service to (a) the imaging/VR community with his software and (b) potential IPIX investors, by inadvertently showing that IPIX is also overvalued.
It would be rather good if every investor in a company first did a search for open source software that is also in the same market and possibly invalidates patent claims. Venture capitalists do quite a lot of technical 'due diligence' to check out whether a new product development is really what is claimed, so this would fit quite well.
Re:mmh... sounds like QTVR (Score:1)
And if their documented change history withers an exhausive examination.
Thou should not throw stones. Ps. Go the improved file format. Go to the satellite imaging era, aka 1970's. Geo surveys from orbit, and terran based pictures: same concepts = old hat.
more ipix lawsuit references (Score:1)
Banner and Witcoff who have a page about the case here:http://www.bannerwitcoff.com/press.htm Note that not only did Ipix get a $1,000,000 damages against Infinite Pictures but the same amount against an individual software user a Bill Tilman, who downloaded (bought) and made content with it which he put on his site. This victory followed two unsuccessful court actions by Ipix against Infinite Pictures. This page by Banner and Witcoff replaces an earlier one where they explained how by demonstrating how IPIX's software made a "blurry" picture sharp in the courtroom in Tennessee they convinced the jury (!)- they also emphasised in this page how case-setting it was that they managed to get damages against an individual software user. Ipix posted a notice about this victory at the time emphasizing its victory over Bill Tilman as well as Infinite Pictures effectively threatening web developers individually. Then a few months later
(after the court victory against Infinite Pictures) IPIX started to tackle Live Picture which had introduced 8mm stitching functionality in Photovista. LivePicture put a page up (no longer available) saying they "strongly resisted" the accusation that their software infringed IPIX's patent and that it was "in no way" true but the cave-in was accomplished a few weeks later. Then they bought out joint press statements saying they would "work together" with Ipix saying it would use LP's "Flashpix" (streaming zooming functionality) in a future Ipix version.http://www4.zdnet.com/intweek/daily/97091
http://eva.dc.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind97
This joint development effort never eventuated. At the time Eric Chen (the inventor of Quicktime VR, who had left Apple and set up Realspace which was the precursor to LivePicture's panoramic technology (now called Zoomit -John Sculley, ex Apple CEO with his son Jack had bought Live Picture, the image program, Realspace, another image streaming technology OLIVR and an interest in a chat company
Talk City and was talking up a grand synthesis of online virtual photoreal interaction) - anyway, Eric Chen said to the disgruntled community of Photovista users, who had "supports 8mm fisheyes"
all over their product boxes and documentation, in a posting to the online support list this: sorry folks, you really didnt want to use those 8mm lenses anyway - well more literally this is what he said
http://eva.dc.lsoft.com/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind97
So LivePicture not only gave in on the 8mm fisheye setting it removed fuctionality which allowed users to define "custom" rectilinear lenses with focal lengths of less than 14mm (on 35mm format presumably!) So Ipix's claims appear to include some rectilinear lenses. Note though that the use of the 16mm full frame fisheye lens type was allowed to remain and Chen explains how with more shots these can be used to create fully spherical scenes with Photovista.
Re:You Can't do that! WE DID IT FIRST! (Score:2)
Then there's QuickTime VR which has full stitching support and has been around for years.
In the Name of God (Score:2)
humanity. This company, claiming patent rights over cartesian geometry (discovered hundreds of years ago) is outlaw, and is a blight upon the face of the earth.
I've seen 3-d panaroma java applets over a year ago, but that's not the point. The technology is nothing new, and no big deal. You can create much better just by placing the camera inside a Povray scene within a sphere, against which images are wrapped or projected onto the inside surface, or any 3d interactive program which is detailed enough to be considered photorealistic and rotating the observer (looking in any direction). This has been around for years, if not decades, in computer science and GIS and astronomy and God knows what else. What is a planetarium ?
Do I really have to explain any of this to any of you who passed high school history and science?
If legal methods cannot be employed successfully, and soon, to control and eliminate this theft of knowledge by falsely claiming intellectual property rights over what belongs to God, then war is declared. These people and the corporatins they are using to hide behind are attacking our civilization and the whole basis of intellectual freedom and human dignity. If there is anything worth fighting for, this is it.
First, I suggest a well-organized legal fight in the courts supported by civil disobedience on a massive scale, to have the whole concept of software and algorithmic patents outlawed. Mirror all such sites if you can, and defy all software patents you can.
Stallman would be a good person to spearhead such a legal effort, in the US, with a team of carefully picked lawyers behind him. He should beg, plead and scream for donationations from all persons who want to contribute to a fund needed to accomplish this, or establish a permanent charity for such legal action. RMS is non-violent. Give him a chance to try that route.
Companies and individuals attempting to intimidate others with these false claims should be made to pay heavily, to the point where they are put out of business and/or lose all persnal assets or face jail terms.
If that fails, anything goes. Nerds, you cannot afford to wait another 2 or 3 years. If this kind of thing continues unopposed, this earth will be a living hell beyond the imagination of science fiction writers to properly describe it. These people want to own and control everything, from our DNA to our very thoughts. This is actually happening - hard to believe.
You have your work cut out for you. In the name of God, realize what is happening and do your duty.
Re: IPIX vs. Live Picture (Score:2)
Even then, I wasn't really sure what was so unique about the IPIX patent(s). I remember in their hardware system, they used a Rockwell chip that was designed to correct the distortion in satelite images. So, it seems that there is a fair amount of prior art around their patents. I thought that most of the patent covered mainly the real-time aspects of the hardware. (It could take live video input and de-skew it.)
[and this is my first
Re:Mirror of the original threatening letter (Score:2)
If I were Helmut, I would take the following very simple approach to the response...
Since IPIX feels that their threatening email is also a copyrighted document, and I don't see how I can be forced to acknowledge a legal agreement I have no desire to be a part of, I would simply return the email to them, with a note saying "Thanks but I don't agree with the terms of use for this document", and simply refuse to acknowledge the threatening email any further.
No email, no threat.
One of my housemates (who is less of a Bastard than I) is practically hopping up and down about how posting the litigious email to Helmut's web site could easily fall under the Fair Use clauses, provided Helmut did something as simple as annotating the document, which makes his document a derivative work.
Hmm... Wonder if the press would be interested... (Score:3)
Federal Register: Notice of Public Hearing on Prio (Score:3)
"SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is seeking comments to obtain views of the public on issues associated with the identification of prior art during the examination of a patent application. Interested members of the public are invited to testify at the hearing and to present written comments on any of the topics
outlined in the supplementary information section of this notice."
Talk about timing.
mmh... sounds like QTVR (Score:5)
Is it because they are giving it for free that they are complaining... In that case they just have to add more value to their product to make it competitive. And besides, just like someone was saying earlier... How would microsoft woul;d look with IE in a setting like that...
So I think this stinks and their request is totally stupid... or maybe they should be more precise on what is their problem exactly...
Caus eight now, they look like idiots to me...
Re: IPIX vs. Live Picture (Score:5)
QuickTime VR and most other panoramic technologies stitch together a bunch of flat pictures into a 360 degree pano. These panos have "holes" where the top and bottom are - you can't look straight up or down.
IPIX uses fisheye lenses so that they can get a complete pano with two photos, plus you can look up and down.
Now, Live Picture's PhotoVista used to do that as well, but IPIX threatened us with some ridiculous claim of a billion $ damages. Our research into the history of fisheye images made us confident that their patent had no basis - most don't thanks to the morons in the patent office. Unfortunately, we couldn't afford to defend ourselves - it might have meant a temporary injunction against selling our product. Also, fisheye panos usually have lower quality because the distorion, while easy to correct in theory, is not that easy in real life (no lens is perfect).
Mirror of the original threatening letter (Score:5)
The most interesting thing is IPIX's belief that it "owns the copyright in the format it utilises", and that therefore it has a share of the copyright of the data-file of any image in that format, which it can use to restrict how that data-file is used.
From Dersch's (IMHO) staggeringly mild and reasonable summary [fh-furtwangen.de] of the story so far, it appears that they are still trying to push this claim, which is like Microsoft claiming copyright and distribution rights over every document in Word format.
In this case we might be lucky because IPIX didn't invent the format.
But think of (say) the MPAA claiming such a veto on any file using their new music format. In fact, under the new laws against script-kiddies even describing such formats might become actionable, as abetting the theft of copyright content.
This is a nasty can of worms and it's important for all of us that Dersch sees off IPIX with no compromises.
Re:Let's just develop a better standard! (Score:5)
Like MIP-maps in 3d games, depending on your distance from an object, a server supplies a suitably scaled version.
This is not just applicable to panaoramas, bnut any type of 2D (and perhaps 3D) image data.
This works on a 'tile-based' system, where the image is broken down into a set of tiles, say 100 x 100 pixels each.
A set of 'zoom levels' are also created, also broken into 100 x 100 tiles, you might have a 2500 x 2500 pixel version, a 1000 x 1000 version, a 500 x 500 version and a 250 x 250 version. Depending on how 'far away' the viewer is from the image, the server sends the appropriate tiles.
i.e. if your original image is 5000 x 5000 pixels, and your viewing window is 320 x 200 pixels, the server figures out which 'tiles' it needs to send to the client to fill the viewport, and does so. If you move the viewport, a new set of tiles are sent. This means the client app never needs to download the full 5000 x 5000 image.
If the user wants to see the full image through his 320 x 200 viewport, he can zoom out, but the server then simply suppplies all the tiles from the 250 x 250 zoom level, so that 320 x 200 pixels are the maximum that ever need to get sent over the network. Client side caching of tiles would of course speed up this process.
This information (zoom levels etc.) are all encapsulated within a single file, with options for static serving (all 'zoom levels' present in the file, leading to a larger file on the server end) or dynamic serving, where the server calculates the appropriate zoom and tile settings depending on the image and the client viewport size.
I suggest we need a GNU Image Server capable of using Wavelet, JPEG and any other file format described by some kind of plugin architecture.
This would mean Linux could become the premier platform for the presentation of scanned documents, photographic images etc. If there was a standard, free API and tools for this kind of thing, all sorts of neat, bandwidth-friendly apps could be created.
I'm not much of a coder, but i think i understand what sort of stuff we need here. Its possible an existing open standard for this sort of thing exists (i remember seeing an article about something by Xerox similar to this)
Regards
-Pete
peterb@actrix.gen.nz
Uses of panoramic views (Score:4)
The arguement appears to be about the usage of a file format, which I consider to be less important than the technique, but still brain dead.
It looks like the information is still there. (Score:1)
Google mirror: (Score:1)
You'll probably have to correct the URL as I can't get the "&" to show up as anything other than "& ", which screws up the link.
Software patents are such BS.
-A.P.
--
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
Re:Free Software Legal Defence Fund (Score:1)
(Then again, the "control" problem might well be a legal issue, if it's significantly more difficult or more expensive for an organization to defend a product it has no legal control over.)
Re:legal basis? (Score:1)
Re:Time to Create Bad Press (Score:2)
The OSS movement is about a *better way* to do things. Using the same tactics as the opposition isn't a better way, it's a rehashing of the same old crap and will ultimately have the same results.
(NB: this is also the problem I have with the GPL's "fight fire with fire" methodology --- it means that in some circumstances I have to treat GPL'ed software as *proprietary* from a legal standpoint...)
Time to Create Bad Press (Score:5)
Well, we could either drag this whole thing through an extended court procedure to blow off their somewhat simple-minded insistance that they alone have World Domination of the 360-degree photo market, or:
We could create a whole lot of bad press for them, watch investors treat them like lepers, see their IPO fail miserably and their company crash, the execs lose their jobs and their children forced to sell pencils on the street to stave off starvation.
Personally, I prefer the second course of action. Talk about a shot heard 'round the world. We could do it, too -- the same way that FUD doesn't work against the OSS community, we can raise a stink about idiotic corporations like this one.
----
Re:IPIX lossage (Score:2)
Open Source - "Embrace and Extend" (Score:1)
Its funny that open source advocates pick on Microsoft for "embracing and extending" as opposed to innovating...it looks like thats what most open source developers do. I don't blame these companies for defending their turf - whats the point of going into business just to fee ideas to the waiting hordes of open source programmers?
Working from the other direction (Score:3)
I went to the IPIX web site this morning, and I took a look at the companies that they cite as being 'happy customers' and who generally user 'their' technique to sell product.
I noticed one of the companies was an aircraft manufacturer.
My flying school has one of the aircraft made by that manufacturer.
So I rang my flying school. I said "Because you use brand-x aircraft, and brand-x financially supports IPIX, I'm not going to fly with you any more". Whammo, thats a $600.00 per month hit in their pockets.
Then I rang the brand-x Aircraft company and said "Because you use a product from IPEX corporation, and my flying school uses your aircraft, I've cancelled my lessons with my flying school, and I'm taking my business elsewhere".
Now you can bet your arse the Cheif Pilot at my flying school rang brand-x aircraft company and
said "what the fsck is it with this IPEX mob?"
I'll be checking the list again tomorrow, and calling the other manufacturers of goods and services that I use and are on IPEX's list...
There's more than one way to skin a cat...
(By the way, this is in no way supposed to be a judgement on the Eagle Aircraft company or the excellent Eagle 150 aeroplane. It's just my way of digging at IPEX from the other end of the food chain...)
A comment from a active pano shooter... (Score:5)
The comment from a LivePicture person is pretty interesting and suggests that IPIX is aggressively trying to use their (imho) overly broad 8mm lens software patents to prevent competitors from offering spherical solutions.
While 90% of the time regular cylindrical panoramas are ideal for capturing the essence of a place, there are a number of situations where a spherical panorama would show additional things of interest. For instance, a cave, under a forest canopy, an underwater scene, or bizarre points of view inside a Bryce constructed world.
Many of us who shoot a lot of photo VRs would like to have the flexibility to shoot either spherical or cylindrical. But there is no way I'm going to pay $25 a panorama to publish VRs on the Web. No way I'm going to support an organization that threatens individuals like Helmut. No way I'm going to enter into an agreement not to compete with the various partners of the spherical tool-maker. Imagine if Kodak charged you a licensing fee of $20 for every roll of film you shot using Kodak's patented film? It reeks of a monopolistic world-view. That business model could only work if there were no competitors offering spherical panos without per-pano fees. Besides Helmut's excellent tools, there is now another competitor in this niche--Smoothmove is a spherical solution that allows you to shoot using 14mm or other non-fisheye lenses, and without per-pano fees.
Disclaimer: I have no connection with Smoothmove, other than wanting to see some competition in the spherical pano world (well actually I'd like to see ethical people/organizations succeed, but that's dreaming).
Moderators - score that one up! (Score:5)
The great strength of it is that you probably don't ever need to spend the money, you just have to have it. You need to be able to say "we can fight back, so it's probably not worth your while fighting us, we will both lose a lot of money but our side will win". It's ideal for a fund.
This has been proposed many times, but as yet nothing has happened. Someone the community trusts needs to stand up and say "I'll do it", the rest of us need only make donations.
--
Re:Time to Create Bad Press (Score:1)
Yes.
That way, maybe some of these corporate idiots will think twice before harassing people.
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here [kernel.org]!
Re:Time to Create Bad Press (Score:2)
No. Using the same tactics would be if we had sleazy lawyers (but I repeat myself...) send them threatening lawyers.
Using the sunshine of publicity is a different tactic: one that they are no doubt unfamiliar with. It's about time these companies have to consider the publicity angle before they send out their lawyers.
(NB: this is also the problem I have with the GPL's "fight fire with fire" methodology
Ugh. What does this rubbish have to do with the matter at hand? I like the BSD license less and less as I read more anti-GPL screeds. And I'm not even a hard-core GPL guy...
--
Get your fresh, hot kernels right here [kernel.org]!
I'm confused. This sounds like it isn't that bad (Score:3)
It seems that IPIX believes it owns the ability to limit usage of its file format, to stop people from making use of its viewer without paying royalities (which is a mistake in their marketing model). However, the tone of the page doesn't make it sounds like they are in the inquisition mode of suing all people, everywhere.
Something that a /. type site could help with (Score:2)
forum that people could discuss how to actually
make such a format. (a little like ask
Something that would be longer lived than the
news.
Remember the LPF (Score:2)
The organisation (or what ever there is of it these days) that was about this type of thing, is the League for Programming Freedom.
see http://lpf.ai.mit.edu [mit.edu]
This is also a good (in name at least) place to look as to where to start setting up such a legal fund. What WOULD be a good idea (if the funds could be generated for it) is to sort out the legal situation in as many countries as possible, and let everybody know where they stand w.r.t the law of their land (I'm a UK citizen).Re:You Can't do that! WE DID IT FIRST! (Score:1)
That is a very thin argment. Every living thing (and conceptual thing that is made up of living things) wants to survive and prosper, some to the benefit of society, and some against. Throughout history, societies have attacked some things that would prosper at the cost of the society (because societies also want to survive and prosper).
The question is, since a corperation can only seek money (nothing else can collectivly reward a company), and that may involve tactics that are harmful to society in general, what can be done to prevent that harm. Some feel that the free market alone will regulate the situation. At the other extreme, the idea is that a system where money is the only potentail reward is intrinsically incapable of co-existing with society.
The truth is probably somewhere in between, but current laws strike me as woefully inadequate to the task.
Re:Of Patents and IPIX (Score:1)
The problem is, they're trying to license a process of conversion from a format they don't own to another format they don't own, using software they don't own. (Apparently, the format IPIX uses isn't their invention.)
All that because otherwise, nobody will license the software they do own on a per-use basis. The real world just won't support their pricing scheme and they're crying about it.
Essentially, what they appear to be doing is like Microsoft suing someone fro writing a PS to HTML converter. They don't own PS or HTML, or any of the code in the converter, but they DO own an HTML editor....Even M$ wouldn't try a stunt like that.
Re:Time to Create Bad Press (Score:1)
There is nothing wrong with exposing bullies such as IPIX, nor about having build-in self-defence mechanisms in a license like GPL.
Re:Open Source - "Embrace and Extend" (Score:1)
Please get real. Nobody with a clue are picking on Microsoft for using existing file formats, protocols or API's, it is quite the opposite, MS get flammed for inventing proprietary protocols and proprietary extensions to existing protocols.
Finally, if some companies in some areas can't compete with free software developers, then they should fold or change their business model. Free software may not be the best business model in all areas, but in those areas where it is, it should be allowed to win in a fair fight.
That's how a free market works, when it works.
Free Software Legal Defence Fund (Score:5)
Somewhere to send the threats, and get an answer back "this is obviously groundless, we'll take care of the defence".
PS: I don't know enough about the actual case, to say whether this would be something appropriate for the free software legal defence fund.
Talk to RMS (Score:2)
--
Re:legal basis? (Score:1)
Of course it won't happen, because some of that money goes to "campaign contributions."
Political corruption devastates freedom.
If you want to ... (Score:1)
/jarek
Re:mmh... sounds like QTVR (Score:1)
A good angle for bad publicity (Score:3)
Re:Free Software and Patents (Score:1)
here's the info i found on the site. can anyone tell me an alternative business model to the 'you copy I'll litigate' approach. how else is someone able to develop an idea and commercialise it?
what's the time-limitation of patents? (have'd to do a lot of research to see exactly whats covered, and i dont have the time)....
also there's the issue of this company using the tools to commercialise artwork....but the last work goes to an email i remember, with john carmack talking about persons/companies copyrighting their code/software technology and vigerously protecting it, as (words to the effect of ) being 'techno-wusses for not willing to be technologically competitive'.
this matters not as cut and dry as one might think.
not to put a dampener on it but... (Score:2)
check this url http://www.herring.com/mag/issue66
talks about the problems with law suits wrt to small firms and big companies and how the small firms loose
Re:You Can't do that! WE DID IT FIRST! (Score:1)
Calling such people Sharks, Wolves, or even Hyenas or Jackals is insulting the animals.
The new management of IPX seems to be that predatory type that has no real value to society. A bunch of litigious lawyers and "Venture Capitalists" who are out to accumulate (not make) money by any means they can. They are no better (indeed, no different) than the local extortionists that have always plagued us, demanding money (or earlier, goods) under threat of some sort of harassment while making no contribution to society themselves.
So, while such companies must be attacked vigorously and squashed with all ethical means available, don't make the mistake of putting all companies (or even all large companies) in this category. :)
== Buz
Dang roman alphabet... (Score:1)
Re:Possible /. manipulation? (Score:2)
If you're thinking I'm from mediaone - you're mistaken. They're my ISP, not my employer.
If there's a further explanation you find yourself in want of - e-mail me [mailto].
--
Re:Time to Create Bad Press (Score:5)
Here's what we can (should?) do:
We have the undivided attention of *technical* journals/'zines. Let's use the slashdot effect to write to them, encouraging them to publish an article on this. If there's a free alternative, why spend money on their IPO?
Mirror it! World governments can't seem to stop encryption simply because the "genie is out of the bottle", to quote an NSA official. Let's mirror it, and then publicize it. It's the worst thing we could do to them - make their competition's product easily accessible. It worked against microsoft, the NSA, and a plethora of other evils in the land. I don't see why we can't do it again.
But resist the urge to become personally involved. We should unilaterally take the same approach to any business that tries this: Initial publication, mirror the affected site, contact the presses, ruin their day. It's now a time-tested formula. Use it!
--
Contact Information for: IPIX (Score:5)
1-800-336-7113
sales@ipix.com [mailto]
IPIX Stockhouse Manager, Jeff Puckett
1-888-909-IPIX
stock@ipix.com [mailto]
IPIX CLIENTS
Suprisingly.. blank [ipix.com]
Maybe you'd like to talk to their investors?
Motorola [motorola.com]
Mediaone [mediaone.com]
Advance Internet
American Express [americanexpress.com]
Financial Advisors [americanexpress.com]
Cendant
General Electric
Invision
JP Morgan [jpmorgan.com]
--
You Can't do that! WE DID IT FIRST! (Score:2)
More corporate bullshit. Gotta get the cash. Nothing else matters.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Microsoft not a large user of patent system? (Score:1)
"Information retrieval system in an on-line network including separate content and layout of published titles"
The think they own 360deg? (Score:2)
But surely, I can't be the only one who remembers visiting Disneyland and soaring around China in a 360 degree movie theatre?
Then, of course, I've got a swivel chair that creates the same effect; maybe they should sue Herman Miller as well?
And heck, who came up with the idea for dividing a circle into 360 equal portions? Gotta sue them (or their heirs) too!
For that matter, the whole universe seems to be infringing on IPIX's 360 degree panoramic view concept. Can't really sue the big bang. Maybe Steven Hawking? (Or God, for those that think he exists?)
Where do I send my $$$ for the FSFDF?
IPIX vs LivePicture? (Score:2)
The decentralized solution to this problem (Score:5)
Step 1: Locate IPIX content. Find a large amount of IPIX content on the WWW or anywhere else you can find it, and select one piece at random. By "at random" I mean RANDOMLY, not arbitarily. Generate a random number with the computer, throw a dart, etc. If your random number is "1", go with the first hit - don't say, "That's not random" and generate a second number.
Step 2: Locate the person responsible for distributing the IPIX content you have selected. Be persistent. Unless that person has gone into the Witness Protection Program, it should be possible to locate him or her. It may be easy, or it may be hard, but it should be possible. If you fail, try harder. Hire a private detective if you must, and if you can afford to.
Step 3: Once you have found the IPIX content publisher, call and politely explain what IPIX is doing, and why you believe it is a bad thing. Don't harass. If the person asks you not to call them again, your job is done.
Step 4: Return to step one as necessary, but be careful not to contact the same person twice.
This is very important: don't do anything illegal. Finding a person, calling that person, and talking politely - none of these actions are illegal. Don't take it any further. There will be no need to.
Finally, keep up with the news. If IPIX capitulates to your satisfaction, stop. Vengeance is unbecoming. If they take action which is insufficient, let IPIX know what more they must do.
Re:What IPIX forced him to remove.. (Score:1)
This is clearly the best strategy, since it will demonstrate clearly that sending threatening legal letters over matters such as this, with thin legal pretext, is a *bad idea*. The mirrors should lead to the development of a converter to some other format, preferrable a better on. And needless to say, an unencumbered format. My only slight reservation is it would also lead to wider recognition of whatever their stupid format is.
--
Re:Contact Information for: IPIX (Score:1)
Re:Someone should test the patent office (Score:1)
Any lawyers out there want to try?
360 degrees?...I got an idea! (Score:2)
legal basis? (Score:4)
Beautiful art (Score:1)
http://www.hotspots.hawaii.com/wrinklehome.html
IPIX should port to Linux (Score:1)
Re:Free Software Legal Defence Fund (Score:5)
---------------------
Remember the LPF
by John Allsup
The organisation (or what ever there is of it these days) that was about this type of thing, is the League for Programming Freedom.
see http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/ [mit.edu]
This is also a good (in name at least) place to look as to where to start setting up such a legal fund. What WOULD be a good idea (if the funds could be generated for it) is to sort out the legal situation in as many countries as possible, and let everybody know where they stand w.r.t the law of their land (I'm a UK citizen).
-------- John Allsup email: jda570@bham.ac.uk
Felix
Related image-processing technology (Score:1)
In a nutshell, Steve Mann takes images (well an image stream) from his wearable camera and stitches them together to create a seamless single image. He calls this system "painting with looks". The software is VideoOrbits [wearcam.org] and is downloadable as a tar.gz (rpm coming).
I think some pretty cool worlds could be created by combining painting with looks with Dr. Dersch's panorama software.
Re:In the Name of God (Score:1)
Free Software and Patents (Score:4)
I am curreently authoring some software that will make "Montages" (see The Linux Image Montage Project [thelinuxmart.com]), as the software I am using now has a clause in the licensing agreement that states, "this software can be in no way used for commercial purposes" (I am paraphrasing here). It would also appear that the person who invented the technique [photomosaic.com], has a patent not on the algorithm, but the look-and-feel of a Montage.
What really get's me is that photographers have been making 360 panaramas & photo montages, albeit analog ones, for years. I am suprised that just because the picture is represented by bits instead of film-grain that it makes any difference.
-AP (Jordan Husney)Re:Free Software Legal Defence Fund (Score:3)
While it is true that Microsoft has taken an interest in filing some rather onerous patents as of late. I would note that we've yet to see an litigation from these patents. Past history has show us that Microsoft's use of patents have been defensive, not offensive.
In fact several times Microsoft has been the violator of a patent and actually ended up loosing.
Stop making Microsoft the enemy in fronts where they aren't. IPIX are the people that are using patents for offensive warafare, not Microsoft.
Of Patents and IPIX (Score:5)
IPIX is claiming that he violated their copyrights with regards to one of the example photos that he had on his website.
Helmet argues that he took the photo and in fact was even in the photo. However, this is not a total response to IPIX's claim as I understand it.
IPIX claims that their file format is a computer program and as such is entitled to special protection under the copyright laws. While, the information is not clear, I would imagine the supposedly offending photo was in an IPIX format, since the page that they forced him to take down was in relation to how to convert from their format.
So why is IPIX doing this? They are going after Helmet not because they have a problem with his software. While they probably don't necessarily like the fact that his software is available, what they find particularly offensive is his description of how to move from their file format.
They're doing this because their licensing structure is setup such that you must pay *PER VIEW* of their file format. So if you can easily convert away from their file format then you can easily avoid their licensing scheme.
So they aren't trying to protect their patent. They're trying to protect their licensing scheme.
Re:Busted! (Score:1)
Re:IPIX lossage IANAL (Score:1)
Re:Microsoft not a large user of patent system? (Score:1)
Is it just me, or could this apply to just about EVERYTHING on the net? Usenet, most web pages, SGML, heck, even e-mail, to some extent.
Depends how you define "layout". If simply picking a font becomes a layout, then there's practically nothing that uses text and doesn't apply!
Re:Free Software Legal Defence Fund (Score:2)
And the government(s) of the world should be convinced that this (free software) is a good thing for the society. They can do some things to help such a fund. I.e. it could get a status where donation could be tax-free, judges could rule that condemned defendants have to pay their fee or part of it in such a fund etc... .
An car manufacturer in europe was condemned to pay 100.000.000 EURO (I think) for unfair treatment of customers. Imagine microsoft "donating" 10 percent of a similar fee for this fund - that _would_ rule.
I think _this_ is one of the most important investments for the future of open source, otherwise we'll see the suits coming.
Open Source developers are very unarmed targets for corporations nowadays.
720 degrees (Score:1)
Re:The think they own 360deg? (Score:1)
They want to sue me for looking around me?
Re:Free Software Legal Defence Fund (Score:2)
I'll speak with him more about extending this to include non-FSF-copyrighted programs in some way too. If you're interested in helping out, I'd appreciate any input.
IPIX lossage (Score:5)
What I'm getting at here, and this might or might not apply in this particular case, is that even if companies don't have any legal grounds for something, they can cause a lot of trouble because most of us don't have the funds or the strength to fight them in court, so it is easier to fall back and do as they ask than to stand up against them.
People have suggested having an organisation that could defend free software projects in court. However, if I've got this right (IANAL so please tell me if I'm wrong, it would make me very happy), with the current laws, only the copyright holder can acctually defend his program and it's unclear to me if some other organisations could even drive a lawsuit against the company without owning the copyright. As I understand it, thats one of the reasons why the FSF has wanted the copyright for some of its programs (like the libc, gcc, binutils, fileutils and others). If someone were to violate the GPL on these programs, it would be easy for the FSF (and for the court who doesn't have to account for a hundred different copyright holders) to prosecute the offender.
So this doesn't seem to be a situation where you can simply say, as a developer, "here; go talk to the FSF instead and don't bother me." Instead you would have to draw the lawsuit yourself and the only thing that another organisation could contribute with would probably be funds to do this. However, I don't think most people would care. Even if they did get funds for it, it would still be much too easy to fall back and live by the rules dictated by a company.
Re:Free Software and Patents (Score:1)
It probably doesn't, but the only to find out is to provoke them into sueing you. Patents are cheap, but court wins aren't.
-sam
Re:Free Software Legal Defence Fund (Score:2)
Does anybody know why this doesn't exist yet? I would have thought that someone like the FSF would have at least thoughy of the idea by now.
Perhaps there has never been a need, but it's now getting clear that a need is forming. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if something like this is allready under consideration by some group like the FSF, I only hope it happens soon. If it works for the EFF I see no reason why the free software people can't pull of something similar.
Re:Let's just develop a better standard! (Score:3)
Possible /. manipulation? (Score:2)
Their first post starts off by telling
Their next post appears to provide a useful resource to the community, listing IPIX contact details and shareholders.
One of these shareholders is given as the Media One Group (mediaone.com). http://www.ipix.com/about/about.html [ipix.com] corroborates this. A quick lookup on http://nsiregistry.com gives us a primary domain server for mediaone.com of ns1.mediaone.net. So mediaone.com and mediaone.net are the same entity.
The two posts I have referred to purport to come from signal11@mediaone.net
I don't know what's going on here, but I don't think I much like it.
signal11@mediaone.net has been notified of this reply, so I hope (s)he will soon come and explain themselves. For their sakes, I just hope it's all a big coincidence/cock-up.
FLF - A Free Law Foundation? (Score:3)
There must be some lawyer geeks out there who would be willing to represent persecuted open source developers in cases like these?
Part of the problem with having a trust fund for law suits would be controling its use. Someone would have to decide who was to get backing and who not. With a list of lawyers willing to represent cases for free, it would be up to them if they worked on a particular suit or not.
As a good meeting point, how about if Slashdot were to have a sign up page for lawyers? What do you think, Rob?
Re:Free Software Legal Defence Fund (Score:2)
David
Re:FLF - A Free Law Foundation? (Score:2)
But there's no reason why we can't pursure our interests along many different avenues. The power of focal points such as slashdot are already felt, but could be magnified even more. I think slashdot should use its large mindshare as an organizing force for this. Imagine if you could have a little box on the side (like the freshmeat box) with a list of pending conflicts. If a particular conflict gets you hot, hit the donate button and charge $10 (or more) for defense fund. If it were that easy, I wouldn't think twice about sending small sums flying to the aid of people like this. Since there are a lot of slashdot readers, the small sums could add up quite fast. We just have to make it convenient for people to donate.
I've never been particularly politically involved, but it is clear that the net could make grass roots efforts incredibly swift and powerful.
Re:I'm confused. This sounds like it isn't that ba (Score:2)
Precedents (Score:4)
This seems groundless, as this sort of thing has been done for years, if you look through MS's site, it shows lots of white papers on how to migrate from lotus notes to exchange, for example, and excel can import various non MS formats.
However, if this stands, it could set a nasty precedent, imagine if gnumeric or koffice were not allowed to have an excel import option? Or if Samba was not able to use the SMB protocol?
The possible repercissions of "you're not allowed to build an import filter for our file format unless we allow it" do not bear thinking about.
--
Re: ethics of software patents (Score:2)
Let's just develop a better standard! (Score:5)
It seems to me that there's a whole mess of papers submitted at SIGGRAPH 97 (see pages 243-258) and before on the subject of creating panoramic picture anyways. IPIX cannot be "revolutionary" if researchers from Princeton, Apple, and Microsoft Research have been working on this for ages. So obviously IPIX has no precedence on the "algorithms" to create panoramic images...
As for image formats, screw 'em! There's always got to be a better format. Let them make the fatal mistake of a proprietary format, and then us free software mongers shall smite them with an OPEN standard. Thus forcing them to comply! Muhahahaha!
Any takers?
Cheers,
Stryemer
My fortune cookie read:
"You will recieve faster silicon love in your future."
-Stryemer
We are the music makers,
and we are the dreamers of the dream.
Re:Quicktime... (Score:3)
All for one and one for all (Score:5)
Re:Free Software Legal Defence Fund (Score:5)
Another, perhaps more useful, way for the OSS community to attack idiots, is to begin pooling ideas and forming a pool of patents and other intellectual property to affirmatively assert as counterclaims in defense of mind-loss lawsuits.
In the "real world," the threat of a lawsuit is often met with a portfolio of IP in return. "Sure, sue me if you like, and you'll be embroiled in litigation as a defendant until HFO." Cross-licensing makes the lawyers go away, and that is the end of many marginal cases.
To the extent that OSS community *is* being creative, it would do well to begin securing protection for its inventions, if not to assert against third parties, at least to use as fodder for cross-licensing in defense of others. (The existence of a solid portfolio of technology can also effectively rebut the FUDdy allegation that OSS is primarily derivative work.)
Another idea, though this is far more controversial: A provision that nobody seemed to like in Apple's latest OSS license was the "sue me for IP if you like, but you lose your license to any Apple OSS" provision. Wouldn't it be nice for future corporations who sue Open Source providers to place at risk forever their right to use Linux? Perhaps a "sue-and-autolose" policy is overreaching and impractical, but how about a "sue the OSS if you think you can win, but if you lose, you lose all OSS rights forever" view?
Re:mmh... sounds like QTVR (Score:2)
Apple QuickTime Authoring Tools [apple.com]
Re:You Can't do that! WE DID IT FIRST! (Score:2)
Of course companies care only for money, as entities, that is what companies do, and attacking them for it is about as stupid as attacking a fruitfly for wanting to fuck.
The issue is not that companies want to make money, everyone knows that, but that this is another example of what software patents are allowing companies to do to the little guy.
Commersialism is thankfully rather self regualting in this respect: screwed up laws are discovered and exploited by the companies fast, so they also can be fixed fast. Now we just need the government that enforces the laws to do something...
... or we could just get rid of the whole thing...
Re:Free Software Legal Defence Fund (Score:3)
Seriously, companies like IPIX prefer to go after the little fish, victims that simply don't have the money and time to defend themselves properly in court. Sometimes it's just to strengthen their case for when they have to go up against bigger fish.
A defence fund has more advantages than just pooling money. It means you can get a house attorney speciallized in this type of case. You can also setup a PR machine that can quickly get the word out that IPIX is a bunch of shitheads, that their licencing agreement is very restrictive, and that their are free alternatives to their software.
Crashing there IPO.. (Score:2)
1) we are boycotting them; and
2) there are more flexible free alternatives like VRML.
Our problem is that the free alternatives (while more flexable) are of slightly lower image quality and we don't want to risk creating any new investors for them via drawing attention to them.
I suggest that someone who knows more about IPO's then I do post soemthing about how to find there future investors without finding any investors who have not heard of them. Note: JP Morgan is handling there IPO.
I suppose we could keep an eye on the chat stuff in forbes.com and fortune.com (at least one of them has one), but I did not want to draw attention to them ammong investors unless people were discussing them already.
Just my thoughs..
http://www.iqtvra.org/noipix.html (Score:4)
http://www.iqtvra.org/noipix.html
http://www.virtualproperties.com/noipix/noipix.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/05/30/144
What IPIX forced him to remove.. (Score:5)
Some information was taken down... (Score:5)
Personally, while I understand IPIX has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders (yes, it has some, even though it's not publicly offered yet) to protect the value of its intellectual property, this one's gone just a little too far.
--
Re:Quicktime... (Score:2)
http://xanim.va.pubnix.com/home.html
Does QT Movies and more....
Am i missing something here???? (Score:4)
Re:Time to Create Bad Press (Score:2)
1. I will never buy their products
2. I will neverwork for them
3. I will tell everyone I know not to buy their products
4. I will tell everyone I know not to work for them.
I want every executive who is out there for the big buck at any cost to know that we, the guys who actually make it work, will not tolerate persecution of those who are kind enough to donate their time and talent for free to all of us. If you cannot make a better product than freeware with all of your resources, then accept it, and go into a different branch of business, or out of business, if that is what you have to do. But let us have an honest race!
Being honest is more important than making a buck. One day you will have to stand before God and answer for your actions, and you cannot pay a lawyer to defend your dirty acts before God!