Technology Description | Market Served | Technical Details | Risk Of Not Owning This IP | Disclosures | Patent Info | Inventor Bio
IP Technical Details
* This section covers eight important evaluation criteria of the subject Patent(s), observability, ease of investigation, lack of prior art, alternatives, technology life cycle, current use, future commercial use, and scope of claims, as described by the IP and Engineering firm TAEUS (c).
* It is important to point out that the analysis presented here is not generated by TAEUS (c), but uses their guidelines in an effort to inform IP managers of the risks and values associated with this IP.
* A numeric rating system is not used in this presentation, but rather left to the reader or IP manager for their own conclusion. Factual support is presented here to aid in objective analyis of this IP per the above-listed criteria.
* For a truly independent review of this IP per the eight evaluation criteria, TAEUS (c) or some other third party source must be consulted.
Observability
* The subject patents are relatively easily observed in terms of infringement. Any product that is operator supported and disposes the camera out of reach of the operator is very likely infringing on at least one of these patents.
* The features of operator supportability and extended reach are described in detail and protected extensively by the subject patent bundle.
* The relatively basic conceptual design of the Operator Supported Remote Camera Positioning and Control System architecture make it highly observable, both directly through product literature and advertised features, and indirectly through intended use of those products/technologies.
* This ease of Observability is partly due to the broadly worded claims and strong claims language.
* The true beauty of this IP, however, and in fact of this entire technology, is that it is relatively simple in concept, and fundamentally uncomplicated in its basic application. Ease of Observability is one basic result of that conceptual simplicity.
* Another result of the basic conceptual simplicity of this IP is the ease with which this IP can be enforced. Any infringing product/technology will typically be quite obvious and observable, making licensing an attractive option for the infringing party as well as a bonus revenue generator for the owner of this IP, typically and ultimately without any need for litigation.
* This technology scores highly for 'Observability'.
Ease of Investigation
* As with Observability, product literature on intended use and advertised features, often available on-line at essentially zero cost, will quickly reveal if a target product/technology contains or infringes on this protected technology.
* And as with Observability in this case, the elegant simplicity of this IP will typically make it very easy to investigate.
* Technical and marketing literature will very likely produce obvious conclusions for any questions of infringement.
* This technology scores highly for 'Ease of Investigation'.
Lack of Prior Art
* Due to the emerging nature of the technology defined by this IP, there is a substantial Lack of Prior Art, both in previous Patents and within the general public domain.
* Relevant reference prior art in the technology space of Camera Support equipment, cranes, includes U.S. Patent 4,849,778 (a manually telescoping camera dolly crane) by Samuelson in 1989, and U.S. Patent 4,907,768 (auto telescoping camera dolly crane) by Masseron in 1990.
* Neither of the above referenced Patents pertain to Operator Supported or Hand Held technologies, nor do they lend themselves to be applied as such at all.
* Successfully navigated prior art in the technology space includes U.S. Patent 4,672,436 by Hawthorne in 1987, and U.S. Patent 5,065,249 by Horn in 1991.
* The Horn Patent describes a monopod Camera Support technology that utilizes ground support for stabilization while acquiring imagery, making no mention either in claims or specification as to Operator Support during image acqusition, or the associated moving camera utility that would result in same.
* One niche product of similar concept to the Horn monopod patent is (apparently) unprotected by any Patents. Successfully marketed to high school football programs in the South West United States, the 'Hi-Pod' utilizes ground support for stabilization while acquiring imagery as does Horn.
* While the above linked 'Hi-Pod' product line includes a body vest for operator support, the conceptual and mechanical design are both derived from a vertically standing monopod, as the product name implies.
* Basic design limitations of the 'Hi-Pod', such as the single axis manually operated camera head and the narrow beam design, give no functionality multiplier to make it suitable beyond it's current use or outside its niche market.
* The Hawthorne Patent specifically details a camera within arm's reach of the operator for manual operation by that operator, both in specification and claims. Hawthorne makes no reference to remote positioning or control of the camera by the operator, either in specification or in claims.
* Even the 'Pole-Cam' (TM), the lightest most portable form of ground supported camera crane, is not practical for operator support if moving/walking while shooting. A further look uncovers it's limitations which are overcome by the subject patent bundle.
* The long narrow tubular beam of the 'Pole-Cam' is relatively flexible even when made from relatively stiff aerospace composite materials. This is true because neither stiffness nor light weight are sufficient by themselves, or even in combination with a lack of integrated conceptual design, to give complete camera maneuvering and positioning freedom to this type of product.
* The high slenderness of Pole-Cam's beam system lends itself to dynamic bending while being maneuvered or in winds, resulting in unsteady Camera Support and associated image wobble. This effect is typically minimized with the use of wide, very wide and extremely wide angle lenses.
* The pendulous bob of the pan/tilt may dampen some of those nasty dynamics, and users swear by the reliable simplicity of the system's built-in auto level functionality afforded by the pendulous pan/tilt.
* Ironically, the same pendulous bob of the pan/tilt feature of the 'Pole-Cam' (TM) limits this device/technology to level horizon or traditional style content production.
* The Pole-Cam (TM) is further limited in functionality since the body support can not be dynamically isolated from leg motion while walking, which somewhat defeats the purpose of body support from the start with this product form. This is essentially just a tripod or dolly/pedistal supported system that packs up light enough for a single person to haul around for shipping.
* The 'remote head' camera configuration required of the 'Pole-Cam' (TM) product form is another strike against it. Video production crews that use this product are stuck with a limited choice of cameras, and that is a big no-no for dedicated camera tool users within the wider industry of global TV/Cinema content generation.
* None the less, for several years now the 'Pole-Cam' (TM) has found a niche market for light weight cranes, and sells their product for about $30K/unit, with no camera. 'Pole-Cam' (TM) behaves like a simple crane (traditional imagery only, no tilted horizon) so the users understand it and know what to expect.
* 'Pole-Cam' (TM) is designed like a simple crane, and there is no known IP protecting it.
* Finishing the 'Pole-Cam' (TM) discussion, the farthest point on the human body from the feet are the hands, as measured through the load path of the human skeleton. Hand Held support would give as much or more dynamic insolation from walking motions with a 'Pole-Cam' device as a body mount does. However, at an all up weight of 44 pounds, Hand Held support is not a practical option for Pole-Cam.
* Another interesting Camera Support product of this brief review is an attempt to blend an Operator Supported Stabilizer with a beam and remote camera head at the end, as seen at this web site. This product emerged a few years after the subject patents were filed both domestically and internationally, and it bears watching closely for possible infringement. No known IP is currently associated with this product/technology. Stay tuned....
* Finally, none of the prior art items and nothing in the public domain mentions a pan/tilt camera platform designed to stay substantially balanced on the central axis of the crane arm or 'beam', through the full circular range of pan and tilt camera pointing motions.
* This technologically unique feature allows for maneuvering through the complete range of spatial orientation with the camera positioner while not adversely affecting the Camera Support performance or structural stability of the positioner. Again, this is a unique feature within Camera Support technology.
* This patented 'pan/tilt balance feature' of the subject Patent bundle serves as a functionality multiplier in the marketplace, allowing for modern-style and traditional level-horizon shooting, as well as for confined space Camera Support.
* The 'pan/tilt balance feature' also allows for immediate and 'during-the-shot' transitions from underslung to over-slung configurations and gives the two axis camera head further effective degrees of freedom based on grip and maneuvering by the operator.
* Summing up the prior art topic, the subject Patent bundle priority date precedes any and all marginally related Camera Support technology.
* This Patent portfolio brings Operator Supported Camera Support means to a higher level of technology.
* This technology scores highly for 'Lack of Prior Art'.
Alternatives
* Due to the broad scope and strongly worded claims language, there is little or no possibility of other practical technical solutions to the problem of Operator Supported Remote Camera Positioning and Control.
* The extreme difficulty of designing around this group of U.S. Patents to arrive at a marketable product form would require new laws of nature and physics, or something equally significant.
* The extensive, broadly worded claims are based on detailed technical development over years of prototyping and field testing, all with very close attention to the governing applied mechanics involved. As a result, the user friendly and highly functional features of this technology are well covered by the subject IP bundle.
* The fundamental nature of this IP defining 'emerging technology', combined with the claims as written and supported in the specification(s), make it quite unique. It has no alternatives, and most likely none are possible without violating the claims as written and supported in the extensive specification(s).
* There are no alternative Camera Support products or technologies that provide low cost native vertical camera motion. This is it.
* This technology scores highly in the 'Alternatives' category, as no known alternatives exist.
Technology Life Cycle
* This technology represents an entirely new Camera Support product form that offers low-cost native vertical, horizontal and complex (spinning & tilted, etc.) camera motion.
* This new product form is bounded on one side by vertically limited operator supported camera stabilizers and on the other side by expensive (ground based) camera cranes.
* As an new product form, this technology is embryonic.
* This new product form fills the last remaining gap in Camera Support function within the 110+ year old production industry; low cost native vertical (and complex) camera motion in an Operator Supported or Hand Held platform.
* Because of its Operator Supported nature, this technology offers substantially lower cost compared to existing (camera crane) means of substantial vertical camera motion.
* As an extremely versatile, previously unavailable Camera Support tool, this technology offers significant savings as a new form of Camera Support product/tool.
* Embryonic in nature, this emerging technology is in the earliest stage of a potentially very long Technology Life Cycle.
* This technology scores highly for 'Technology Life Cycle'.
Current Use
* As an emerging or embryonic technology, this IP has no current commercial use.
* Various domestic and international production entities have expressed interest in such technology, knowing that such product(s) would give a distinct business advantage over the competition in today's highly competitive, rapidly growing content generation business.
* With essentially no alternatives to this technology, current use will blossom rapidly upon initial market introduction.
Future Commercial Use
* Once introduced and distributed for Camera Support use in the global production industry, this technology will become commonplace. Various embodiments will allow service range from full blown Digital Cinema all the way down to entry level professional production.
* Electronic News Gathering (ENG), event/music/sports video, studio and field production will all make common use of this technology.
* Because of its far reaching functionality for moving camera, modern-style shooting as well as traditional-style, confined space operation and native vertical camera motion, this technology is likely to become more commonly used than either the camera cranes or the operator supported camera stabilizers that it overlaps and fortifies as a single Camera Support tool.
* As electronic cameras and related technologies become more widely manufactured and distributed, as TV and Cinema content comes under increasing demand to fill the ever-growing mass-delivery global infrastructure, and as technology miniaturization continues to march steadily forward, this Camera Support technology will continue to become more and more common throughout the world.
* TV and Digital Cinema production are forecast to be rapidly growing global markets for decades to come. This technolgy will be a cornerstone of the global Hand Held Camera Support market within a decade of introduction due to its high functionality and utility value within the production community.
* Its light weight, highly evolved operator interface and high utility value make it ideal for rapid distribution, ease of operator training and wide spread use within the high-growth global production arena.
* The IP protection and lack of possible alternatives make this technology ideally suited for a rental market model to maximize financial leveraging of it's Camera Support tool value within the content generation segment of the global broadcast/production industry.
* Given the proper and careful development of branding, product diversity, distribution channels, customer support and price point(s) during and after the life of the Patents, this technology should hold substantial market share of Camera Support products long after the Patents expire.
* With multiple rounds of international patents issuing in countries having a majority of the world's population, including India, China, Japan, Europe, Australia and Canada, this technology should have strong market traction for many decades into the future.
* This technology scores at the top of the chart for 'Future Commercial Use'.
Scope of Claims
* This IP portfolio was reviewed by Dr. Francis Via, a 30+ year veteran of IP management and market development for large IP-intensive institutions such as GE and the U.S. Department of Energy, in 2005 (before all of the domestic Patents had issued).
* According to Dr. Via, the scope of the claims in this Patent portfolio is "very broad" and the claims language is "very strong."
* The claims of this group of Patents is fundamental to this entire emerging technology, and describe an entirely new form of product. It is a product from for which a gap exists in the large and rapidly growing global industry of TV/Cinema content generation.
* Not only the claims language, but also the countries and regions of international application and prosecution, are based entirely on a strategy of enforceability. Global enforceability.
* This technology scores very highly in the 'Scope of Claims' category.