D O C . 2 O P I N I O N O N D I S P U T E I N A G V S O P T I K O N 7
2. Expert Opinion on the Legal Dispute between Inag
and Optikon
[Berlin, 4 April
1923][1]
Even though the instruments to which the present legal dispute refers are
complex,[2]
it seems to me simplest to characterize the situation that the lawyers
will consider as follows, according to the concurrent information provided by both
parties:
Of prior knowledge
were:[3]
1) The method of finding, through the photographic exposure of terrain, the lo-
cation and orientation of the exposure apparatus when the true positions of three
points on the
photographic[4]
terrain were known.
2) Methods and means of reconstructing the shapes of the object through central
projection of the individual points of
two[5]
photographic images, whereby the
plates are brought into the relative po[sitions] they had during exposure, irrespec-
tive of their distance.
With his patent,
Gasser[6]
was the first to create an apparatus [which] made pos-
sible both methods by combination and can be used to produce terrain relief maps
from two photographs taken from an airplane.
He was furthermore the first to arrange both methods, combined for the first
time, into a practically useful design and (with his supplemental patent) was the
first to improve method (2) through optical installations that make simultaneous
optical sighting of the pictures of corresponding terrain points feasible for one per-
son.
In this sense, Gasser’s patent is a pioneering patent, and, in my view, there is no
doubt that the apparatus manufactured by the defendant falls within the range of
protection of the plaintiff’s patent.
In this situation, it seems superfluous to delve into the
details.[7]
A. Einstein.