P3D Re: 3d camera u.s. patent

[michaelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Michael Kersenbrock)]

> 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.

Yes, they might not.  But they could as well.

> 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

For the purposes of that patent (which was fiction, it obviously couldn't
be done *now*) it wouldn't have mattered.

Someone inventing a new recording mechanism *would* have the patent
on that new recording mechanism, but in terms of applying it to the 
stereo patent I mentioned, it would be a subordinate patent.  Use
of the two patents together would yield a particular implementation,
and yes the stereo-patent holder could not use *that* recording
mechanism to produce stereo equipment.  But he *could* use *any*
recording mechanism that someone else invented and put into the
public domain, and for stereo purposes he could use it exclusively.
In other words, he doesn't have to specify a specific recording mechanism
unless he/she wants a patent on that mechanism as well (and written in
separate claims or a completely different patent application).

The purpose of making "recording mechanism" generic like that is
to keep others from just using a different recording mechanism
to get around his entire patent who's concept (idea) really didn't
depend upon the specific mechanism (s)he may have used in a
prototype.


> 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. 

Yes, they can be quite interesting, as I mentioned, I once used to 
review patents monthly to see if they affected things going on in
the department I was in at the time.  I also see old technology
patented and I see aggregation patents.  Things one theoretically
aren't suppose to see.  Oh well.  :-)

My admit my knowledge is limited and possibly out of date in the
details, but it's mostly just based on a single semester course
I took a zillion years ago, plus occasional conversations with
corporate patent lawyers (including the ones who wrote up my
two patents).

I still think this mostly is a "heated agreement".  For instance,
I use the word "idea" in a particular way.  Of course, "ideas"
literally are not protected.  Ideas are something in a person's
head, and ONLY that which is one's head.  Anybody can freely think
about any subject they want to and that thinking is not limited
by patents.  That, however isn't what I meant by "idea", and 
I apologize if that was a source of confusion.  It's true
that patents only prevent *any* implementation of the idea
documented in the patent.  But in my mind, the patent applies
to the idea, and it's effect is to disallow uncontrolled 
implementation of that idea.   Semantics are so much fun... :-)

Mike K.


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


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