Page 12 of 12 FirstFirst ... 289101112
Results 111 to 114 of 114

Thread: Pangolin User Meeting Results (and more Free Laser Shows)

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts
    2,333

    Default

    Yes many things are patentable but you didn't answer the question of whether you would patent something that is considered required for the safety of a professional laser show.

    As to the 'why hasn't anyone done it before' yes many things are truely novel but some things haven't been done before simply because the technology available didn't require or allow it. Once the technology allows it, it becomes obvious. One example might be the 6-channel color. Now I wasn't there at the time so might be off base, but before the laser technology existed to be able to control the brightness of 6 colors at once, of course no one wrote software to modulate 6 colors. But once laser tech had developed more colors that could be fit in a projector and modulated, it becomes more or less obvious that yeah, you need the software and DACs to control and mix a few more colors.

    Since the Omniscan is more than a fish-eye lens (and I beleive it is) then there is no patent issue of people using just a fish-eye lens for laser projection right.

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Orlando, FL - USA
    Posts
    1,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drlava View Post
    Yes many things are patentable but you didn't answer the question of whether you would patent something that is considered required for the safety of a professional laser show.
    I guess I reject your premise. The laser display industry has existed for 30 years or more, right? In order to satisfy your premise, it would be as though the laser shows that have been happening over the last 30 years necessarily haven't been safe, right? I doubt that every show producer on earth would agree with this premise...

    People could have been doing what we are doing, safety-wise, for a very long time -- at least 20 of those 30 years. So if they could have been doing it for 20 years and weren't, and if after we do it everyone agrees that it's useful, well, then we have something that is useful and new, and there can't be a claim that it was obvious...

    Quote Originally Posted by drlava View Post
    Now I wasn't there at the time so might be off base, but before the laser technology existed to be able to control the brightness of 6 colors at once, of course no one wrote software to modulate 6 colors. But once laser tech had developed more colors that could be fit in a projector and modulated, it becomes more or less obvious that yeah, you need the software and DACs to control and mix a few more colors.
    Laser light had been modulated by Laser Media since the early '80s. And AOMs had existed for a very long time, and were in use by this industry as well. People have been able to modulate more than just RGB for a long time (if they thought of it). When the PCAOM came out, it offered an easier way of doing it, but still, the PCAOM existed for a number of years before we came out with six-channel color in our software. Again, things exist for a long time and there is a need, but no action... before we do it.

    I hold up LASORB as another example. People have needed to protect laser diodes from ESD for a very long time. And there are numerous patents out there that cover different schemes. In our opinion (and according to our testing), none of them work very well. The best one is by Lucent Technology, but according to their own published results, all of their laser diodes died at some point...

    Within LASORB, we are using parts that have been available to people for a very long time. So, there has been a need for a long time, and available parts for a long time. So why hasn't anyone else done it up until now? I don't know how, and I don't know why, but we always seem to find a new way of doing things.

    Quote Originally Posted by drlava View Post
    Since the Omniscan is more than a fish-eye lens (and I beleive it is) then there is no patent issue of people using just a fish-eye lens for laser projection right.
    Hehe. I'll let you look at the claims and come to your own conclusion .

    Bill
    Last edited by Pangolin; 01-18-2009 at 23:58.

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Posts
    2,333

    Default

    First I start off.. why does it always seem that it's me getting into these discussions with you while everyone else can only sing the pangolin praises (suck at the tit so to speak)? Maybe it's just because I don't own pango gear yet but some times it feels like I am trying to defend the 'free' parts of the laser hobby alone. Free as in ideas are free. I really don't have anything agaist pango to be honest. Thanks for your time on the forum.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pangolin View Post
    I guess I reject your premise. The laser display industry has existed for 30 years or more, right? In order to satisfy your premise, it would be as though the laser shows that have been happening over the last 30 years necessarily haven't been safe, right? I doubt that every show producer on earth would agree with this premise...

    People could have been doing what we are doing, safety-wise, for a very long time -- at least 20 of those 30 years. So if they could have been doing it for 20 years and weren't, and if after we do it everyone agrees that it's useful, well, then we have something that is useful and new, and there can't be a claim that it was obvious...
    If a committee with international influence were to decide that x effect could not be done safely without y software controls, and y software controls were patented by company z, I think the premise would become clear.

    Laser light had been modulated by Laser Media since the early '80s. And AOMs had existed for a very long time, and were in use by this industry as well. People have been able to modulate more than just RGB for a long time (if they thought of it). When the PCAOM came out, it offered an easier way of doing it, but still, the PCAOM existed for a number of years before we came out with six-channel color in our software. Again, things exist for a long time and there is a need, but no action... before we do it.
    Even here it sounds like the technology that enables 6 channel PCAOM is the invention, while adding another 3 channels of software color control is a feature.

    I hold up LASORB as another example. People have needed to protect laser diodes from ESD for a very long time. And there are numerous patents out there that cover different schemes. In our opinion (and according to our testing), none of them work very well. The best one is by Lucent Technology, but according to their own published results, all of their laser diodes died at some point...

    Within LASORB, we are using parts that have been available to people for a very long time. So, there has been a need for a long time, and available parts for a long time. So why hasn't anyone else done it up until now? I don't know how, and I don't know why, but we always seem to find a new way of doing things.
    I hadn't heard of lasorb but it might be an honest patentable invention. however I have a problem with patents that take x existing technology (fast TVS or transzorb), use it in an obvious way "this transient absorber component protects all kinds of things, hey let's patent the idea of using it to protect THIS particular thing." Not that this is what you have done, but I've seen others.

    Hehe. I'll let you look at the claims and come to your own conclusion .

    Bill
    Well if and when I ever have a fancy to wide project I guess I'll have to , but it's unfortunate that it's not as clear cut as a yes or no answer.

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Orlando, FL - USA
    Posts
    1,741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drlava View Post
    First I start off.. why does it always seem that it's me getting into these discussions with you
    I can't answer that question unless I know what kind of "discussions" you think you are getting into. How many other kinds of discussions have you gotten into with me? What kind were they? And do you think they have been productive or unproductive?

    I guess I leave more of an impression on you than you do of me because... somehow I just can't really remember many other kinds of discussions. Is it just me?

    Quote Originally Posted by drlava View Post
    If a committee with international influence were to decide that x effect could not be done safely without y software controls, and y software controls were patented by company z, I think the premise would become clear.
    I don't know. Hypotheticals don't do much for me I guess... In any event, I reject your premise in another way because it makes the assumption that there is only one single way of doing something, and that the one single way is patentable.

    If you take a look at my own patents, you will see that they are new ways of doing old things. For example, there are perhaps over 100 patents issued to General Scanning on the optical scanner, and yet I was able to figure out how to move a light beam in a completely new way.

    The patent system was designed to a) give the inventor an exclusive for a particular invention; and (perhaps more importantly) b) put the idea into the public domain so that it can be improved upon by others.

    My point is, even when something is invented, it becomes public knowledge which only fuels more and more development on the part of others, who eventually figure out a better way of doing the thing anyway. So... Basically, having invented things that other people haven't and also having had my own ideas improved upon by others, I basically reject the premise that you are trying to set forth, even though it is completely hypothetical...


    Quote Originally Posted by drlava View Post
    Even here it sounds like the technology that enables 6 channel PCAOM is the invention, while adding another 3 channels of software color control is a feature.
    Well, I guess I have a two part response. First, we never claimed that 6-channel color was an "invention", only a feature. But secondly (and more to my original point), *somebody* has got to think of that feature first.


    Quote Originally Posted by drlava View Post
    I hadn't heard of lasorb but it might be an honest patentable invention.
    Hehe. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Hmmm -- industry for a very long time -- need for a very long time and... nobody else solved the problem? Sounds patentable to me .



    Quote Originally Posted by drlava View Post
    however I have a problem with patents that take x existing technology (fast TVS or transzorb), use it in an obvious way "this transient absorber component protects all kinds of things, hey let's patent the idea of using it to protect THIS particular thing."
    Right. I hate that too, which is why I was ABSOLUTELY ASTOUNDED to see that Lucent Technologies had patented the use of a multilayer varistor to protect a laser diode from ESD, when, the whole purpose (and probably only purpose) of a multilayer varistor is to protect things from ESD...



    Quote Originally Posted by drlava View Post
    Not that this is what you have done, but I've seen others.
    Hehe... Yes, me too. I have seen Ohms law, Faraday's law, Lens' law and even Back EMF patented, just to name a few things.

    I seriously doubt what we are doing is obvious, and it doesn't take parts that were made for ESD protection and apply them to a laser diode. We tried all of the parts made for ESD protection first. If they would have worked, we would have moved onto "step 2" of our project, and not bothered to develop something new. Plus, I get back to the old argument -- if what we are doing is so damn obvious, why hasn't anyone else done it up until now?


    Quote Originally Posted by drlava View Post
    but it's unfortunate that it's not as clear cut as a yes or no answer.
    I wasn't trying to be a smart ass by telling you to read the claims and judge for yourself. The fact of the matter is that it isn't that clear cut. As one testament to this fact -- LFI spent $400,000 in legal fees to prove it one way or another and, after having spent that money, they were no closer to an answer than you are right now.

    Bill
    Last edited by Pangolin; 01-20-2009 at 20:28.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •