The "system working as intended" would mean that blatantly obvious ideas could not be patented in the first place.
There are only so many ways to do basic things. I'm sure most engineering students could come up with an algorithm to go from a point cloud to a set of polygons, and their algorithms would likely violate a bunch of Matterport's patents, because those patents are so overbroad.[0] That's not okay, in my opinion.
It's like the infamous Mobileye patent that patented the idea of using a camera and a computer to read a speed limit sign while a vehicle was in motion, and then to react to that speed limit in real time. It is written so generically that there is literally no obvious way to avoid violating that patent if you want to have a self-driving vehicle (or vehicle with a strong ADAS) react automatically to posted speed limit signs. As human drivers, we are essentially violating that patent every time we read a speed limit sign, but somehow it's different when a human does it with their eyes (cameras) and brain (computer)?
[0]: Keeping in mind that I am, of course, not a lawyer. Maybe a lawyer would find those patents to be far more specific and complex than I did when I was doing some research, and therefore anyone can implement scene reconstruction without fear of judgment. If that were true, that would be nice.
There are only so many ways to do basic things. I'm sure most engineering students could come up with an algorithm to go from a point cloud to a set of polygons, and their algorithms would likely violate a bunch of Matterport's patents, because those patents are so overbroad.[0] That's not okay, in my opinion.
It's like the infamous Mobileye patent that patented the idea of using a camera and a computer to read a speed limit sign while a vehicle was in motion, and then to react to that speed limit in real time. It is written so generically that there is literally no obvious way to avoid violating that patent if you want to have a self-driving vehicle (or vehicle with a strong ADAS) react automatically to posted speed limit signs. As human drivers, we are essentially violating that patent every time we read a speed limit sign, but somehow it's different when a human does it with their eyes (cameras) and brain (computer)?
[0]: Keeping in mind that I am, of course, not a lawyer. Maybe a lawyer would find those patents to be far more specific and complex than I did when I was doing some research, and therefore anyone can implement scene reconstruction without fear of judgment. If that were true, that would be nice.