3D Ubiquity Comments

I: UGS Synergy - some details

mufasa_001@yahoo.com (I) — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 07:33:23 -0700

Is UGS Synergy really a great game-changing breakthrough or just some really useful software?

Steve Young: People & Processes BEFORE Technology

syoung@gmail.com (Steve Young) — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 06:43:44 -0600

As in any enterprise software implementation. There is always tension between people, processes and technology. The best software automates the best practices in the industry. But if your competitive advantage is rolled into your processes, then you had better make sure that the technology adapts rather than forcing your processes to adapt.

Steven Thomas: Second life hype?

sgt99999@yahoo.com (Steven Thomas) — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 06:50:49 -0600

Timely post. Check out Latest Silly Use Of Second Life: Job Interviews
http://techdirt.com/articles/20070620/101502.shtml

David Prawel: Worlds first free web-based 3D CAD modelling system?

dprawel@longviewadvisors.com (David Prawel) — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:46:50 -0700

Interestingly, I found two good articles on this very topic in my inbox today, one from Jeff Rowe (http://www10.mcadcafe.com/nbc/articles/view_weekly.php?articleid=341530) and one from Ralph Grabowski (http://www.upfrontezine.com/current.htm#b). Excellent reading.

John Callen: UGS and Tech Soft 3D Announce Integration of 3D JT Data Format With HOOPS 3D Application Framework

jncallen@gmail.com (John Callen) — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 11:47:13 -0700

I'm not really sure what this press release means, especially when it comes to "create and consume JT" data. JT supposedly supports an incredibly broad range of data. Does HOOPS support the entire range or is it just focusing on the visualization data? STEP has conformance classes to indicate the various levels of support. Maybe JT Open should consider something similar for JT?

Martin Kulessa: UGS and Tech Soft 3D Announce Integration of 3D JT Data Format With HOOPS 3D Application Framework

martin.kulessa@bmw.de (Martin Kulessa) — Fri, 17 Nov 2006 09:02:10 -0700

I love the wording "Membership in JT Open is available to any and all end user corporations..." somehow they forgot to mention the 90k$ Membership Fee and 45k$ Annual Maintenance Fee that a larger company has to pay to become a member... not that "OPEN" if you'd ask me.

David Prawel: About the Quadrispace 3D patent...

dprawel@longviewadvisors.com (David Prawel) — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:15:33 -0600

Kenneth Wong wrote an article in Cadalyst Management about the patent http://management.cadalyst.com/cadman/article/articleList.jsp?categoryId=33208

Wolfgang Geist: About the Quadrispace 3D patent...

wolfgang.geist@conweb.de (Wolfgang Geist) — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 15:03:11 -0600

I want to comment from an European perspective: For Europeans such patent fights around software are not very common. Due to the scattered markets with different law systems it is extremely difficult and expensive even today in spite of the European community to enforce patent claims across Europe. To stop competitors and to obtain exclusive market positions it is much easier to raise tradename claims as there is only a formal check needed and no long-term discussion and interpretation of technical claims required. Furthermore there are unclear and confusing copyright issues which can feed an army of lawyers and experts. I think Quadrispace will do a costly mistake when they will try to enforce such diffuse claims. Only lawyers will be the winners. No customer will be impressed to purchase software from Quadrispace being afraid of patent infringements when deciding for a competitor. Quadrispace would do better to invest the money they will throw after lawyers into a clever sales campaign.

Steven Thomas: About the Quadrispace 3D patent...

sgt99999@yahoo.com (Steven Thomas) — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 14:19:19 -0600

I did not think very highly of the Quadrispace patent. There were two independent claims and almost three dozen dependent claims. When I read claims, I try and break each one into all the phrases to exactly what is being claimed. In this post I am going to focus on claim 1.

Here is my break down:

Claim 1
A presentation tool for creating, editing, interacting with and displaying a two-dimensional page based presentation in a computer system wherein the presentation comprises:

[a] an ordered sequence of at least one two dimensional pages,

[b] at least one of which two-dimensional pages contains at least one user definable object associated with a three dimensional model

and

operable for manipulating a view of the three dimensional model;

[c] a second user definable object located about the at least one two-dimensional page functionally coupled to the at least one object associated with the three-dimensional view;

[d] the location, appearance and functionality of the at least two objects on the at least one two-dimensional page being

user configurable

and

part of the resulting presentation or document

and

not part of a user interface;

[e] the at least two objects incorporating the information and functionality for interpretation in either a creation tool or a viewer;

[f] and the at least two objects on the at least one two-dimensional page being associated with separate independent data sources.

[That's the end of the claim. BTW, I added the letters in square brackets.]

For readers new to patent drafting, the claim writers tend to construct long noun phrases and use them over and over. Borrowing from the claim language, this is "at least one two dimensional representation" of technical writing hell. That, of course, is just a matter of style.

The way I read it, the heart of claim 1 is phrase [d]. In this phrase, the attributes of the 3D objects are stored in the presentation file format. I know for a fact that this has been done for years in other software packages; e.g., Caligari's TrueSpace.

The entire combination of phrases becomes the claim, so it is not fair to single out one phrase and rip it up. Still, none of the phrases in claim one seems to be anything that has not already been done singularly or in combination. Thus, I am not sure what this claim describes something not already in prior art.

Worse case this is just dubious software patent. However, assuming the examiner really examined the claims and there is something patentable here, the result has to be that Quadrispace found a square inch of unclaimed space in forty thousand acres.

Stephen Carlson: Necessary But Not Sufficient

stephenmcarlson@earthlink.net (Stephen Carlson) — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 08:59:41 -0700

Good article!