Most of the lens companies are going to shutter in fear just thinking about this question, but I need to ask anyway.
"Is there such a thing as an open source freeform progressive/single vision program?? Or maybe one that has a small price with no per click or per month rental fee??"
What I am talking about would probably have none of the newer bells and whistles, fewer corridor lengths, limited correction range, and fewer material choices. Just something basic like the old Crossbows.
IOTA maybe? BTW - patterns on the way
Lost and confused in an optical wonderland!
I need to do some more checking with the smaller companies. Someone must have something that doesn't cost thousands per month to use.Originally Posted by SharonB
Thank youBTW - patterns on the way
All it would take is someone to write the code and distribute it.
Don't know how to write code, or I would think about doing it. Someone should, but hopefully has done it.
A simple aspheric or atoric back surface could be applied to a SV stock lens, PAL, or lined multi focal. The software could be written fairly simply and the formulas are all well known, but could you get passed any patent infringement would be interesting. Very good topic, the communication standard is available through the vision council.
I spoke with a friend the other day that said you can buy clicks fees in advance for around a buck a piece. I will check out his story and get back.
Writing code isn't the problem, the problem is which platform are you writing for?
What operating system, whose stepper controllers, etc. That's the biggest problem. If the controllers for the steppers are custom built for a particular machine (as Gerber is wont to do), it is very difficult to get the data to know how to control them.
Learning to write in Visual Basic, CC+ or C# isn't much of a problem given the number of tools available today, it is the interfaces that always (and have in the past always) caused the problem. While communications externally (like the Vision Council) has standardized, internal communication is quite a different beast.
Yeah, writing code is really trivial compared to opticianry. (Not). Mike, Lens Design Systems produce Surface Definition Files that can be used by any device that complies with the standard. The LDS doesn't need to know anything about the internals of the machine. Some systems do produce different files for different machines, but those files usually differ in the inclusion of machine-specific settings. Even in that case, they're a long way from knowing anything about the low-level motion control details, like what steppers or servos are employed.
Well, I was going back to the OP's comments that started this thread.
And then this:"Is there such a thing as an open source freeform progressive/single vision program?? Or maybe one that has a small price with no per click or per month rental fee??"
What I am talking about would probably have none of the newer bells and whistles, fewer corridor lengths, limited correction range, and fewer material choices. Just something basic like the old Crossbows.
I was approaching it from the standpoint of not so much using pre-existing system which COULD take SDF's and produce a lens, but more from the standpoint of dumping the code of an older generation machine (for example the Gerber/Coburn Vector) that is out of maintenance and support is no longer provided, and writing a system that could support free-form designs. This ties into what Jacqui and MakeOptics and others are writing about in other threads.Don't know how to write code, or I would think about doing it. Someone should, but hopefully has done it.
I never said it was a trivial exercise, but with the availability of FREE coding software such as VB, C# and C++, it has become a whole lot easier than it was even 10 years ago. And this doesn't even begin to touch on the free operating systems such as Ubuntu which are designed to handle more machining software than Windows ever has.
I think Jacqui was referring to Lens Design Software, not machines ("Crossbows" is a company that provides Lens Design software, among other things). Older machines that were not freeform capable are never going to be able to do freeform. Not the Vector, or Lensmaker, or SGX, or any of those. We tried. The software was not the limitation. You might be able to make an FF-capable a machine using some of those castings or bases (but little else from them), but you'd spend more doing it than a new FF-capable machine would cost, and the probability of success would be small.
Yes I am
There are too many freeform machines on the market to worry about making one. I seen what happened when someone tried to convert a Contour Max to freeform, it wasn't pretty at all.
Where are all of the used machines at?? There should be some coming up. The only one I have seen was a DAC that had been terribly abused.
Make Optical had a point with the patents and that may be the BIG problem with open source. Soooo....another idea. Why not re-release an old design with limited capabilities and use it as an entry to sell a bigger new package. For example (I love to use Shamir for this) the original Autograph is still a good lens, not as good as Auto II, but.... It could be released free in limited materials (ex CR-39, poly, 1.67) and limited correction range. It would make things a lot easier for the sales crew when making a call.
Are the lens companies listening to this??
Lens companies will sue you so it is impossible for you to market your design.
I don't know, it could be a very interesting law suit. The big point is that it is FREE. This could be the same type of situation that Linux/Ubuntu is. They have an operating system that in some ways is better than Windows or Mac OS and yet is distributed free, along with software apps that are as good or better than Microsoft, Apple and a few others.
What I'm saying is that I don't think much could be done with law suits other than just annoying someone. Since it is free and limited as far as capabilities, I don't think the courts or juries would do anything.
The big lens companies would also be free to use it if they wanted to
It wouldn't really matter if the software was free or not if you infringe upon a patent the cost for damages to the patent owner are still very real. They will sue. I'm not even sure I care who owns what patent anymore since Seiko and Zeiss seem to be the two that come to mind when talking about FBS designs.
Shanbaum,
By no means am I saying coding is trivial. I was just trying to point out the larger obstacles that would prevent any coding from happening in the first place. Coding when looked at from the project wide stance is probably the most trivial portion of the project. Anyway good luck avoiding this click fees.
One way NOT to infringe is to start from scratch and not look at anything produced by anyone. Blank piece of paper. No pre-conceived notions. Document progress.
This doesn't guarantee that you won't be sued, but it will help during the defense.
That's what I was thinking too
Sorry; while cleanroom development (or "independent invention") may be effective against claims of copyright infringement or appropriation of trade secrets, it's not a defense against patent infringement.
The likelihood that any lens designers would release the code that they use to produce any design is nil. There are no software business models that do not require the protection of intellectual property; that's all that software is, and all lens designers will have features in their software that they regard as proprietary (that is, stuff that they think isn’t generally known).
"Open source" is not a business model, although companies have built service businesses around open source products (e.g., Red Hat). It is, on the other hand, possible that a company like Shamir could choose to provide a simple or obsolete design for free, possibly to inoculate themselves against competition from low-cost providers.
While I said that "'open source' is not a business model", that doesn't preclude the possibility that some person or company, possessed of the technical capability to do so, will at some point in the future make an LDS available for free, including its source, or not. He just wouldn't be doing it to make money directly off that software, although it could be part of some business strategy, such as, landing a consulting job, or just publicity.
Or support, or customization's, etc. The model can work but it is definitely a tougher road to travel.
Mike,
Even without a patent anyone can sue for anything. It might or might not make it to court and may or may not be a battle the plaintiff could win, but if they know you don't have the means to defend yourself just the threat alone is effective enough. Before this conversation goes any further, consider that a bunch of posters on a forum trying to avoid negligible click fees would be ripe for a lawsuit. Just a simple C and D would stop the majority here.
For the time being FF lenses are in the large manufacturers domain. Anyway the next biog advancement is going to be software engines on the dispensers side to avoid having to pay outrageous prices to labs. Or at least that's going to be the sales pitch, a dispensary that pays premium click fees per job is going to be much more lucrative then the labs who negotiate lower click fees. Opportunity exists it's just a matter of time before someone adopts the model.
I wrote "it will HELP" I did not write "it will BE your defense". Come on...read the words written, not what you think I wrote.
I know it very well, as a patent holder myself.
There are plenty of open source business models.
There are tens of thousands of users of open source software who need support that they cannot provide in-house. What immediately comes to mind is shopping cart software. My company uses an open source cart called nopCommerce. It has one of the largest bases of users, and there are businesses who have either written modules for or handle hosting/installation/maintenance for those businesses who do not or cannot do it in-house. I'm one of the lucky ones who can handle the customization and maintenance updates myself, but there are plenty of businesses who quail at the sight of Visual Studio.
You may not believe money can be made off such ventures, but believe it or not, there are a great many people to do and have a pretty tidy income doing it.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that there are no software business models that require protection of intellectual property, that's exactly what open source means. Take Ubuntu for example. Every single line of code in that operating system (based on Linux) is open sourced. The same can be said for Open Office, which runs on a variety of platforms.
OK, Mike, then let me be more precise: it will not help; it is irrelevant. I should say, irrelevant to a defense in a claim for infringement. A record of independent invention would be helpful in defending against a claim of willful infringement – such a claim, if successful, can treble damages. That’s what happened to Signet in Zeiss’ action.
Last edited by shanbaum; 05-22-2013 at 10:20 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks