 | | | Metaballs - regarding patent. | Metaballs - regarding patent. 2005-04-15 - By Brad Friedman
Back
You really don't want to start a debate on this topic here. Trust me.
Software patents are one of the most hotly debated topics in the
IT\political realm right now. Its pretty much guaranteed to descend
into a flame war no matter how mature the discussion group. There is a
ton of material out there, available with a simple google on the term
"software patents." I'd go that route to learn more. But you can take
it for granted: This is not a simple problem with a simple solution.
Otherwise, it would be overwith already.
-brad
Alastair Hearsum wrote:
>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
>
>
>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859 (See http://ISO-8859.ora-code.com)-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
You really don't want to start a debate on this topic here. Trust me.
Software patents are one of the most hotly debated topics in the
IT\political realm right now. Its pretty much guaranteed to descend
into a flame war no matter how mature the discussion group. There is a
ton of material out there, available with a simple google on the term
"software patents." I'd go that route to learn more. But you can
take
it for granted: This is not a simple problem with a simple solution.
Otherwise, it would be overwith already.<br>
<br>
-brad<br>
<br>
Alastair Hearsum wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid626E00731F12D411B80300508B5BBC0F01F2623E@(protected)"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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 [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:kim@(protected)
">mailto:kim@(protected)</a>]
Sent: 15 April 2005 10:59
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:XSI@(protected)">XSI
@(protected)</a>
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:-
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.base.com/software-patents
/examples.html">http://www.base.com/software-patents/examples.html</a> for some
interesting
examples
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/patents
.html">http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/patents.html</a> for a good overview.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">-- --Original Message-- --
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:owner-xsi@(protected)"
>owner-xsi@(protected)</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:owner-xsi@(protected)">mailto
:owner-xsi@(protected)</a>] On Behalf Of Alastair Hearsum
Sent: 15 April 2005 10:12
To: '<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:XSI@(protected)">XSI
@(protected)</a>'
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 [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:joe
@(protected)">mailto:joe@(protected)</a>]
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: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:owner-xsi@(protected)"
>owner-xsi@(protected)</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto
:owner-xsi@(protected)">owner-xsi@(protected)</a>] On
Behalf Of peterb
Sent: April 14, 2005 1:16 PM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:XSI@(protected)">XSI
@(protected)</a>
Subject: Re: Metaballs....
And it didnt stop any competition for implementing them either...
- -- -- Original Message -- --
From: "Andi Farhall" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:andi@(protected)
.ltd.uk"><andi@(protected)></a>
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:XSI@(protected)"><XSI
@(protected)></a>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 7:04 AM
Subject: RE: Metaballs....
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">daft question i know but which algorithm did soft|3d use?
There was
obviously no patent problem there so how come now.....
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
--
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 <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Majordomo
@(protected)">Majordomo@(protected)</a> 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 <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Majordomo
@(protected)">Majordomo@(protected)</a> with the following
text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
---
Unsubscribe? Mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Majordomo
@(protected)">Majordomo@(protected)</a> with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>
|
|
|