 | | | Metaballs - regarding patent. | Metaballs - regarding patent. 2005-04-15 - By kim aldis
Back
In the case of software patents, I disagree, they're too stifling and no-one
benefits in the long or medium term. Others would agree with you. It's the
subject of much debate. :-)
> -- --Original Message-- --
> From: owner-xsi@(protected)
> [mailto:owner-xsi@(protected)] On Behalf Of Alastair Hearsum
> Sent: 15 April 2005 11:11
> To: 'XSI@(protected)'
> Subject: RE: Metaballs - regarding patent.
>
> Surely any original innovative idea should be patentable
> whether software based or not? I'm not defending Quantel by the way.
>
> -- --Original Message-- --
> From: kim aldis [mailto:kim@(protected)]
> Sent: 15 April 2005 10:59
> To: XSI@(protected)
> Subject: RE: Metaballs - regarding patent.
>
>
> Specifically software patents, not patents in general. For a
> good example, remember back to Quantel's famous assertion
> that they had a patent on something like 'the writing and
> reading of values to a framebuffer'. They attempted to sue a
> couple of companies a few years ago, most notably a Japanese
> company, as test cases. Their assertions weren't upheld but
> because their patent was found to be invalid, rather than
> because a court thought it was dumb that any one company
> should hold restrictive rights to such a fundamental action.
> Remember, every action you take on a modern computer requires
> that something is read or written to a framebuffer, even just
> moving a mouse. It's like holding a patent on crossing the
> road or waking up in the morning.
>
> If that particular patent had been upheld then one of two
> things would have happened; Quantel would have asked for
> money in return for a license or they would have used it
> restrictively such that only they could manuacture anything
> that used the patented item. The former, you'd be paying more
> money for your computer, the latter, you'd be buying kit only
> from Quantel, which is kind of scary.
>
> Here's a few views on the subject:-
>
> http://www.base.com/software-patents/examples.html for some
> interesting examples
>
> http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/patents.html for a good overview.
>
> > -- --Original Message-- --
> > From: owner-xsi@(protected)
> > [mailto:owner-xsi@(protected)] On Behalf Of Alastair Hearsum
> > Sent: 15 April 2005 10:12
> > To: 'XSI@(protected)'
> > Subject: RE: Metaballs - regarding patent.
> >
> > Sorry if this is a heretical question and if I haven't
> thought about
> > this deeply enough but what is wrong with the idea of patents?
> >
> >
> > Alastair Hearsum
> >
> > -- --Original Message-- --
> > From: Joe Saltzman [mailto:joe@(protected)]
> > Sent: 14 April 2005 20:39
> > To: XSI mail list
> > Subject: Metaballs - regarding patent.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I just did a simple google search.... this is what I came up with.
> >
> > Seems like GE may hold the patent -- they might have become
> > aggressive in its enforcement -- do you want to take a chance
> > on an infringement case with GE? Could you afford to fight
> > such a case? I don't think most people could do.
> >
> > Just another reason why software patents are not a good thing IMHO.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Joe Saltzman
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Subject 5.11: What is the status of the patent on the
> "marching cubes"
> > algorithm?
> >
> > United States Patent Number: 4,710,876
> > Date of Patent: Dec. 1, 1987
> > Inventors: Harvey E. Cline, William E. Lorensen
> > Assignee: General Electric Company
> > Title: "System and Method for the Display of Surface
> > Structures Contained Within the Interior Region of a Solid Body"
> > Filed: Jun. 5, 1985
> >
> > United States Patent Number: 4,885,688
> > Date of Patent: Dec. 5, 1989
> > Inventor: Carl R. Crawford
> > Assignee: General Electric Company
> > Title: "Minimization of Directed Points Generated in
> > Three-Dimensional Dividing Cubes Method"
> > Filed: Nov. 25, 1987
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You wrote:
> >
> > I've heard this before and it seems rather absurd. Metaballs
> > were in Soft 3D and Houdini before Rem Inforgaphica patented them.
> >
> > I have never heard of patents being retroactive.
> >
> > - -- --Original Message-- --
> > From: owner-xsi@(protected) [owner-xsi@(protected)] On
> > Behalf Of peterb
> > Sent: April 14, 2005 1:16 PM
> > To: XSI@(protected)
> > Subject: Re: Metaballs....
> >
> > And it didnt stop any competition for implementing them either...
> >
> >
> > - -- -- Original Message -- --
> > From: "Andi Farhall" <andi@(protected)>
> > To: <XSI@(protected)>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:04 AM
> > Subject: RE: Metaballs....
> >
> >
> > > daft question i know but which algorithm did soft|3d use?
> There was
> > > obviously no patent problem there so how come now.....
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.10 - Release Date:
> 4/14/2005
> >
> >
> > ---
> > Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo@(protected) with the following
> > text in body:
> > unsubscribe xsi
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.9 - Release Date:
> 13/04/2005
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.11 - Release Date:
> 14/04/2005
> >
> > ---
> > Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo@(protected) with the following
> > text in body:
> > unsubscribe xsi
> >
> >
>
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo@(protected) with the following
> text in body:
> unsubscribe xsi
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.11 - Release Date: 14/04/2005
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.11 - Release Date: 14/04/2005
>
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo@(protected) with the following
> text in body:
> unsubscribe xsi
>
>
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo@(protected) with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
|
|
|