|
|
|||||
Earthmine: Digitizing the Streets with NASA Technology
The online mapping space continues its march towards 3D and startup Earthmine is at the forefront. Earthmine has developed technology that enables them to get high-resolution 3D geo-imagery quickly. They've developed a street-level camera system that enables them to capture 3D data for each pixel. Yesterday Earthmine announced that they have exclusive access to the same NASA technology that is used on the Mars Rover. The technology comes from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. As a part of the deal CalTech will take an equity stake in Eartmine. From the press release:
3D was made for the web. Imagine flying through Google Earth or Live's 3D Maps (Radar post) and getting to see Earthmine-quality imagery alongside the rendered models. I think that both MS and Google will make more investments in this area. Watch Earthmine's trippy video after the jump for a taste of what's to come from them and an explanation of how they do it. Also enjoy the uncredited music from Lemon Jelly.
|
|||||
© 2012, O'Reilly Media, Inc. (707) 827-7019(800) 889-8969 All trademarks and registered trademarks appearing on oreilly.com are the property of their respective owners. |
|||||
Comments: 9
Joe [14 December 2007 11:16 AM]
So JPL exclusively licensed technology developed with public dollars to this startup? Shouldn't this software be available to anyone, without restriction?
Anonymous [14 December 2007 02:28 PM]
And conversely, is profit made from this startup being returned to the public?
James [14 December 2007 03:16 PM]
I agree with Joe's observation... I'm afraid that that happens all too often... The Government subsidizes this and many other things with our hard earned tax dollars and in return we (the sheeple) end-up paying for it twice...
John [14 December 2007 04:09 PM]
I think this is pretty standard. Public universities and research institutions license technology all the time. This enables them to recoup some of the costs of these endeavors and feed it back into new research (which is even more important these days with the budget cuts that institutions like NASA are having to deal with).
Once Academic [14 December 2007 05:13 PM]
The University does not have to recoup costs -- they got their money from the government the first time, sans profit. The government generally lets these contracts to Universities, defense contractors and others under co-ownership agreements. The government has the rights to the software and the contractor has the rights. The public is not given any rights. This allows the University to reward the faculty that develop successful products by making them rich which is a big motivator and allows the Universities to have top-notch talent that they otherwise would not have on a base faculty salary.
Eric [14 December 2007 09:43 PM]
Hey Joe -- you were so caught up in your misguided self-righteous rant, you mis-spelled the word "cost" when you wrote "Shouldn't this software be available to anyone, without cost?"
Fact is, if you had a reasonable commercial need for technology like this, you'd be thrilled that somebody ELSE spent the money, and gladly pay the licensing fee to the private company that commercialized it.
And yeah. I would be thrilled to play with this technology right now too, but unlike you, Joe, I don't think entertaining me is the best use of public funds this year.
eh [22 December 2007 01:26 AM]
Eric, what do you mean by "somebody else spent the money"? It was paid with public funds. You and I spent the money, not "somebody else". And some of us may want to use or further develop the technology that we paid for, for real purposes other than entertainment. Why should we have to pay AGAIN, and be subject to some company's restrictions on what purposes we can put it to?
Eric [23 December 2007 12:18 AM]
My gosh. You just don't get it. Should we all get semiconductors, solar panels, and velcro too? Public funds paid for their development too.
You didn't pay for it. I didn't pay for it. WE ALL PAID FOR IT.
The Feds needed the tech for the Mars Rover project, and would have paid for it whether it could eventually be commoditized or not. At least this way, the PUBLIC receives the benefit of the licensing fees the commoditizing company pays.
And regarding the restrictions... the Feds keep a web site specifically designed to market commodity-worthy technology developed in the public interest with public funds. You could have bid on it too, just like the company that is offering it, and then made it available without whatever restrictions you feel are onerous.
Regarding "entertainment". You're right. I should have used the word "hobby" (as the IRS would define ti).
Again. I too would love to play with it. If I can conjure up a business scheme sufficient to convince financiers of it's potential, I would license it in a heartbeat. But unlike the original researchers/developers, I'm not willing to accept the risk.
king [ 8 November 2008 12:59 PM]
Full version is free to download at http://newfileengine.com/