DI vs. DSI
Posted: 06 March 2009 03:52 PM   [ Ignore ]
Rank
Joined  2009-03-04
Total Posts:  14
New Member

I making a new MT system and wanted this time to explore object recognition… granted i don’t get sued by Microsoft’s 100k patent mad . Well obviously I have to decide whither to go DI or DSI. I understand the differences making them but am asking for the differences in performance. Theres probably no right answer and reasons for both but I want to know everyones opinion. Thanks

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2009 03:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2008-09-12
Total Posts:  2225
Dedicated

Hmm.. from my tests, DSI more easily produces an even distribution of IR light, thus making pattern recognition consistent no matter the location on the table.
PS: what M$ patent are you referring too?

 Signature 

MT Website - A Collection of the Most Relevant Multitouch Info From These Forums
Multitouch Blog
Multitouch Parts Store - Buy Infrared Touch Frames (No Camera Needed!), Complete Modified Cameras and DIY Upgrade Kits, m12/CS Mounts, m12/CS Lenses, Infrared Lasers, LEDs, etc

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2009 04:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Avatar
RankRank
Joined  2008-12-07
Total Posts:  108
Member

Peru, I think he thinks he can be sued by microsoft. There are some others on the forum that have said similar things. So let me lay out basic patent law, as long as you are not commercially selling the units, it does not matter if you do everything the same exact way microsoft did. Patents only protect an invention and design from commercial sales, but your free to copy the patent for something only you will use.

 Signature 

JUST GETTING BACK TO THE WORLD OF MULTITOUCH!!!! HI ALL

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2009 04:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2008-09-12
Total Posts:  2225
Dedicated

And if we are selling them?  Which techniques are patented?

 Signature 

MT Website - A Collection of the Most Relevant Multitouch Info From These Forums
Multitouch Blog
Multitouch Parts Store - Buy Infrared Touch Frames (No Camera Needed!), Complete Modified Cameras and DIY Upgrade Kits, m12/CS Mounts, m12/CS Lenses, Infrared Lasers, LEDs, etc

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2009 06:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-04-08
Total Posts:  2539
Dedicated

Pretty much all the techniques are patented hah.

 Signature 

MTmini, MTbiggie, & Audiotouch creator & Community Core Vision Co-founder

Follow on:
My Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Youtube

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2009 10:32 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
RankRank
Joined  2008-05-16
Total Posts:  117
Member
leading the way.... - 06 March 2009 04:26 PM

So let me lay out basic patent law, as long as you are not commercially selling the units, it does not matter if you do everything the same exact way microsoft did. Patents only protect an invention and design from commercial sales, but your free to copy the patent for something only you will use.

Then explain this: touchkit. They’re selling FTIR displays, but Han has the patent on that, (right?)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2009 10:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-04-08
Total Posts:  2539
Dedicated

I can’t remember if Han actually ended up with the patent or not.

You can sell things that are patented, but you risk being sued or getting a cease and desist letter. Someone that sells a few hardware things here and there really won’t have an issue. I mean, it’s very unlikely Microsoft or Apple would sue a person who holds .0000001% of the market. The lawsuits probably start once someone starts to really become competition or shows potential threat to the patent owner; of course this is up to the owner and you never know. With that said, there’s a million ways to get through patents. Changing even something slightly can give you enough to say you design is ‘different.’ At this point, the patent office will seems to almost accept anything as a patentable heh. MT hardware is a tough business though since there’s too many companies to name that supply solutions now.

To answer you Brandon Capecci, I think DSI is by far better than DI. It all comes down to cost. DSI requires the endlighten acrylic which is 4+ times the amount of normal glass/acrylic. If you have the money, I would think it’s completely worth it.

 Signature 

MTmini, MTbiggie, & Audiotouch creator & Community Core Vision Co-founder

Follow on:
My Blog | Facebook | Twitter | Youtube

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 March 2009 11:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Joined  2008-02-12
Total Posts:  1120
Member

When did MS get a patent on DSI???

 Signature 

Company Website - Knode Research and Development
My Youtube

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 March 2009 10:56 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Rank
Joined  2009-03-04
Total Posts:  14
New Member

I’m not sure about a patent on DSI but I know they have one for object recognition. Now, I’m not exactly sure of the extent of such object recognition… whither it disallows other MTs from any form of object recognition altogether or just their “domino tags”. It’s their 100,000 patent. In any case, the surface is a nice model of the potential of DI technologies, but like you said, a home DI suffers from uneven light distribution so I’ll probably end up going DSI. I wonder what the surface does to prevent this uneven light? I’m not worried about about being sued by Microsoft they have never once sued because of market competition, only retaliation lawsuits. I didn’t realize Han patented FTIR, I just thought he provided documentation on it. Regardless, most people are making FTIR and considering Perceptive Pixel sells their displays for like 100 grand, touchkit and similar companies don’t run much risk getting sued imo. As long as I get object recognition Ill be a happy camper and so I’ll look into pricing on DSI and if its too steep I’ll try to find a way to make a good DI setup. Oh and Seth, the the OS is coming along nicely… although a OS takes much longer I’ve stayed up quite late working on it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 March 2009 01:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Avatar
RankRank
Joined  2008-01-05
Total Posts:  163
Member
Seth (cerupcat) - 06 March 2009 10:44 PM

I can’t remember if Han actually ended up with the patent or not.

..... With that said, there’s a million ways to get through patents. Changing even something slightly can give you enough to say you design is ‘different.’ At this point, the patent office will seems to almost accept anything as a patentable heh.

Just a small note: In order your patent to be distinguishable from that of a similar patent, it should include an “inventive step”. Moreover, it’s required that “a person having ordinary skill in the art” would not know how to solve the problem at which the invention is directed by using exactly the same mechanism (which is called “non-obviousness").

For more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inventive_step_and_non-obviousness

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2009 10:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Avatar
RankRank
Joined  2007-05-05
Total Posts:  191
Member

not sure if microsoft has a patent on dsi smile not that i know of anyway....

 Signature 

Blog: http://iad.projects.zhdk.ch/multitouch/
180 Project: http://www.timroth.de/180/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 July 2009 01:21 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Rank
Joined  2009-05-23
Total Posts:  8
New Member

Well, the companies are still VERY aggressive with patents.
GestureTek --->
“Thank you for your enquiry. Our tables are completely covered by our patents. If you copy our MT tables you will be violating our patents. Our patents also cover some of the other MT tables that are appearing on the market. Open source content applications are separate from our patented software and hardware.”
PerceptivePixel --->
“So you want to copy our product?”

Ha, seriously....open source is too nice to most companies!
Perhaps M$ wants to keep their “we’re open source friendly now” reputation, but I don’t see any reason for other companies to engage in patent lawsuits which would kill this whole community.
It’s just funny looking at how they run the risk of preventing massive development in this field because they want their own proprietary models that no one can improve unless they decide otherwise. This is even after I tell them that I’m a student. (don’t have a response from M$ yet, but if they say the same thing !!!)

I was thinking, if this software/TUIO/ReacTIVision is useful for other companies, why should they get it for free when they squander innovation of new technology?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 August 2009 09:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
RankRank
Joined  2009-07-31
Total Posts:  213
Member

The information is spreading too fast. Han applied for his FTIR patent back in 2007. Disney applied back in 2006. Neither patent has been awarded (as far as I know).

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 April 2010 10:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Rank
Joined  2008-08-14
Total Posts:  22
New Member

The whole question of DSI, DI, FTIR or LLP is depending on the type of setup you need to use.

As for DSI: I disagree with some ppl saying the prize is the worst thing about DSI.
For me, it’s definitely the signal-to-noise ratio, which is much worse compared to any other technique out there, be it FTIR, DI or LLP.

This is because Endlighten contains diffusors that project light not only in the direction of the surface, but also in the direction of the camera. Because of this, a significant amount of IR light is seen by the camera, even if no one touches the surface at all.

My advice would be: For stable and ambient light-proof setups, FTIR is definitely the way to go. For wall-based or more experimental setups, DI is generally the better way, perhaps coupled with the pulsed LED technique proposed by Echtler et al.

Best, Codey

Profile