 | | | Metaballs - regarding patent. | Metaballs - regarding patent. 2005-04-15 - By peter@(protected)
Back
It really depends on the monkey doesnt it?
Quoting "Raffaele \"ThE_JacO\" Fragapane" <jaco@(protected)>:
> Ed?
>
> ~Raffaele Fragapane
> ~Lead "I'm sure we can make it work"
> ~Peerless Camera Company
>
>
> -- --Original Message-- --
> From: owner-xsi@(protected) [mailto:owner-xsi@(protected)] On Behalf Of
> Dan Yargici
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 6:06 PM
> To: XSI@(protected)
> Subject: Re: Metaballs - regarding patent.
>
> Michael Jackson?
>
> Pingo wrote:
>
> > who would wanna wake up in a monkey anyway...
> >
> > On Apr 15, 2005, at 14:25, Adrian Wyer wrote:
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >
> > ---
> > Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo@(protected) with the following text in
> > body:
> > unsubscribe xsi
> >
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo@(protected) with the following text in body:
> unsubscribe xsi
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release Date: 14-Feb-05 (See http://Feb-05.ora-code.com)
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release Date: 14-Feb-05 (See http://Feb-05.ora-code.com)
>
>
> ---
> Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo@(protected) with the following text in body:
> unsubscribe xsi
>
---
Unsubscribe? Mail Majordomo@(protected) with the following text in body:
unsubscribe xsi
|
|
|