Re: [photo-3d] Re: Wide-angle Stereoscopy and the LEEP 2/2

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

Abram Klooswyk wrote:
> However, the patent description was accepted by the US Patent 
> Office, so there must be some truth in it, and indeed the LEEP 
> pictures seem to support the claims. If the claims of the 
> patent description are right, the LEEP viewer can only be used 
> to view pictures from the LEEP camera. (So I wonder if Don 
> Lopp has done that, or tried it with other pictures?)
> 

I'm not sure how widely known this is, so I thought I'd point out that
the first sentence above is a really bad assumption.

The US Patent and Trademark Office does not check applications to make
sure that they really work the way they say they do.  That would
require a lab to duplicate the work of each application (and assumes
that each application is a complete description).  They assume that
the item being described works the way the application says it does.
They don't even do a complete patent search on the application to
verify that the applicant has done a proper search.

Part of this situation can be blamed on a small budget, but a good
deal of the problem rests with the USPTO itself.  They have repeatedly
refused to hire experts in several important fields (notably
mathematics and computer science) as patent examiners and instead hire
lawyers and rely on the "Industry" (the same industry that is applying
for all these patents) to guide them.  This situation has lead to all
sorts of problems.  The most visible of which are software and user
interface patents (which are specifically not allow by law, but which
the USPTO continues to grant).

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"