P3D stereogram patents and harrassment

[Martin Simon <msimon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George T. brought up the Peck patent and Larry Berlin and Ron Labbe
have discussed the NEThing patent related to stereograms.  During the
heyday of sirds many companies jumped into the making of posters.  I
am aware of two companies that did receive cease and desist letters,
(and I am sure more than two did) not from NEThing, but from NVision.
NVision claimed that they liscenced the Peck patent.  NVision tried
to shut down others who were producing cheaper (and poorer quality) posters.
(At least that was better than some who just counterfeited NVision's
posters and sold them internationally.)  I'm not a lawyer, but I 
carefully read the Peck patent at the time.  It was very interesting and
foreshadowed some of the development of sirds, but it did not actually
cover the hidden image stereograms IMHO.  It did cover things like 
NEThing's "falling coin" poster.  This had repeating panels of falling
coins.  Each coin was slightly rotated from panel to panel.   NVision's 
desist letter didn't actually make the patent infringement case, but 
accused others of copying their "look" and use of color and other matters.  
    One company told them to "go to hell" and never heard from them
again.  The other entered into negotiation and eventually agreed not
to use NVision's color bleed effect on posters, an effect which was by
then obsolete anyway.
    There were rumours at the time that Beccei and NEThing were going
to use their impending patent to shut everyone else down.  However, after
it was issued, reports "from inside NEThing" (maybe from you Ron :-) ) 
were that Beccei decided not to go after everyone.  If I remember right,
that patent dealt with an algorithm to create random blobs out of smaller
random dots.  This technique was being replaced anyway by the use of color
texture patterns and even photographs as the surface texture.  I do know
that there 
was one fight between NEThing and a publisher who had an agreement to publish
Henry's Gift by Digi-Rule.  NEThing did throw the patent around in that
argument and did scare the publisher, who didn't understand the technology
or whether the patent was relevant.  They did reach some agreement.  Henry's
Gift was published as a Magic Eye book and didn't do very well.  I still see 
it being remaindered at $1.45.  Henry's Gift was an innovative book which
used stereograms as part of the story element.
      I don't believe any of the patent issues or marketing decisions
adversely effected the creativity of the artists or the ultimate decline of
the market for stereogram books and posters.  At the end of the boom, there 
was lots of good innovative product out there (and lots of garbage too) and 
few buyers.
    


------------------------------