P3D Re: 3d camera u.s. patent

[Larry Berlin <lberlin@xxxxxxxxx>]

>Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998
>From: Michael Kersenbrock  writes:
>
>>.....( I commented).........
>> ****  Actually this isn't quite right... Patents ONLY protect the specific
>> implementation of an idea, NOT the idea itself. You cannot patent an idea,
>
>This really isn't true from my point of view, but I think it's a matter
>of sematics.

****  It's a matter of law, which is mostly semantics... but very specific
semantics.

>
>In my designs, I can get around a patent by implementing a function 
>in a different manner than what a patent covers.  However, "the manner"
>that the patent covers is itself an idea of how to do whatever it is.

****  That *manner* is not the idea itself even though based on and an
expression of the idea, and that's the critical difference. 

>
>Strong patents are written in generic terms.  That is, without
>technology-specific'isms, even though any given implementation
>would consist of some specific technology.

****  Strong patents are not written in too generic terms lest they be
proven invalid. It's a balancing game between claiming connection to as much
as possible while being specific about one's own design. In order to claim
the connection to various ideas, one has to explicitly state the connection
and have something *concrete* to connect it to, the *manner* as you called it. 

>
>As an example, if a patent had been made for stereo pictures that
>patented the idea of "presenting a recorded image for each eye that
>was recorded from two different vantage points which nominally 
>would be, but not limited to,  eye spacing apart", it would be
>for an idea.  Doesn't matter if it's implemented using film, prints,
>or a tachyon-beam.  One *could* have patented the film implementation,
>but the inventor should fire his patent lawyer for having written it
>that way.  A lot of patents *are* written to patent implementations,
>but those are very weak and relatively useless because they are too
>limited in scope (in other words, too easy to get around).


*****   Your example has problems... yes, it's founded on an idea, but the
statement mentions *recorded image*, *from two vantage points*, and thereby
has substance that might be patentable. You can't patent the average spacing
of human eyes however, nor can the idea of two vantage points be patented,
and without some known means of recording the whole thing is meaningless. Of
course you will find ideas in each and every patent, but those patents don't
protect the ethereal idea itself.

For example, 10 different inventors can have the idea of using *two vantage
points* and *recording an image* and come up with 10 different patents
without necessarily creating a conflict between them.

You say it *Doesn't matter if it's implemented using film, prints, or a
tachyon-beam*, but it does matter. The extremely generic instance is invalid
since it doesn't specify which form or any number of other very critical
details. Any of the different methods embodies it's own set of unique ideas
that weren't part of the original generic concept of *recorded* image (in
your example). The reconstruction by tachyon beam might not be considered to
be an actual *recording*.  So in order for your patent to be valid it has to
have specific details that become enforceable by being identifiably unique,
AND which are not mere repeats of the thousands of patents that already use
the idea of two vantage points and a host of recording methods and devices,
or which is general public domain knowledge.

There's a good example, recordings! The basic idea of creating, having and
using recordings doesn't have one patent, it embodies thousands of patents
and parts of patents, so is not by itself patentable. 

This attempted balance between a generic all encompassing language and the
specific down to the dots details is characteristic of patents. Not all
patents are equally valid. The only way to prevent others going around your
patent is to be so complete and specific that no one can find an alternate
route that wasn't explicitly included in your patent.  The generalized
language is NOT necessarily the most effective part of a patent. The trick
is to speak broadly AND specifically all at once. Read the recommended books
on patents and these distinctions will start to clear up. The Nolo Press
book is a really great one to read. The experience of reading actual patents
provides a dramatically different outlook. If they are taken by themselves
without understanding the *legal* environment they are intended for, they
can seem quite strange. At the least they can be entertaining. 

Larry Berlin

Email: lberlin@xxxxxxxxx
http://www.sonic.net/~lberlin/
http://3dzine.simplenet.com/


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