|
|
|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[WM]: Question about Digimarc watermarking patents
 Dear watermarkers,
Recently I found following old email from watermarkingworld's email archive.
And, I also have heard that Digimarc's patents cover all watermarking algorithms based on spread spectrum technique. Is that true? Best regards, Choong-Hoon Lee >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>To: "Furon Teddy" <FURONT@thmulti.com>
>Subject: Re: [WM]: The state-of-the-art of spread spectrum watermarking
>From: "Andrew Z Tirkel" <tirkel@c031.aone.net.au>
>Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 17:09:05 +1000
>Cc:
<watermarking@ltssg3.epfl.ch> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Hello Teddy, >Interesting
dialogue...
>Just a couple of points and more questions.... >You wrote:
>>2. Well, what do you mean with "public WM algo.". public key algo?
public
as
>>blind algo (detection without the original image)? or public as free from
>>royalties? If last
choice, Digimarc's patents (numbers are 5,748,783
>>5,710,834 and 5,748,763) dating from May 1995 are
said to cover all
>>watermark algorithm and application based on spread spectrum technique. Is
>>this really true
? Nevertheless, Tirkel and van Schyndel wrote articles
>>about spread spectrum WM technique with binary m-sequences in
1994. Does
>>anybody know something sure about what can be done without giving royalties
>>to Digimarc?
>Actually, the spread spectrum watermark using pseudo-random sequences to
>modify a
greyscale image was conceived by Charles Osborne and myself in late
>1992. Our first publication of this concept was in
1993 and is available
>from Ron van Schyndel's web page. Our subsequent publications have been on
>extensions of
the concept to more dimensions, colour images etc etc.
>Although our technique has ben labelled as one pertaining to the
spatial or
>pixel domain, we have only used the pixel domain because of its simplicity.
>Some people consider that
modifying the technique to another domain, such as
>Fourier, DCT etc is significant, whilst in our eyes, it is an
implementation
>issue. The total number of transforms is huge, but only a few are useful.
>The commercial work at
Digimark was almost concurrent and totally
>independent. Digimark have always !
been honourable and cited our public
>domain papers in their patents. Which particular claims of the
Digimark
>patents appear to restrict your or anyone's freedom to work in this area?
>I'd be interested to know.
Best wishes,
>Andrew Tirkel
______________________________________________________________________________
Watermarking Mailing List - http://www.watermarkingworld.org/ml.html
To unsubscribe send email to "majordomo@watermarkingworld.org" with
"unsubscribe watermarking YOURMAIL" in the body.
______________________________________________________________________________
|
