 | | | Metaballs - regarding patent. | Metaballs - regarding patent. 2005-04-15 - By Adrian Wyer
Back
actually, Kim DOES hold the patent for crossing the road.....
i think Ben holds the one for waking up in the monkey
this thread is SO discussion list bound
adrian wyer
head of 3d
milltv
adrian@(protected)
www.the-mill.com
t: +44 (0)20 7287 4041
f: +44 (0)20 7915 0551
-- -- Original Message -- --
From: "John Norman" <john.norman@(protected)>
To: <XSI@(protected)>
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 12:59 PM
Subject: RE: Metaballs - regarding patent.
>>> Kim Aldis wrote:
>>> " It's like holding a patent on crossing the road or waking up in the
>>> morning. "
>
> Hey Kim, you made my day!
> You put it so well, LOL.
>
> John Norman
>
>
> -- --Original Message-- --
> From: owner-xsi@(protected) [mailto:owner-xsi@(protected)]On Behalf
> Of kim aldis
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 6:59 PM
> 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
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo@(protected) with the following text in body:
> unsubscribe xsi
>
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo@(protected) with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
|
|
|