Wow, this is interesting for all developers of 3D games/engines
by Hokuto · in General Discussion · 03/31/2005 (4:06 am) · 20 replies
Http://www.igda.org/columns/lastwords/lastwords_Mar05.php
A patent from 1987 (I think) claiming ownership of spherical camera movement... action started for now agianst 12 major publishers and 1000 released titles...
Worth the short read from the link above
A patent from 1987 (I think) claiming ownership of spherical camera movement... action started for now agianst 12 major publishers and 1000 released titles...
Worth the short read from the link above
#2
More than six months, less than a year I'd say since it first it the news, we even discussed it here, iirc
But looks the patent owners are still trying to get people to pay up, hence why the IGDA is looking for prior art :)
03/31/2005 (6:22 am)
...and it's very old news :)More than six months, less than a year I'd say since it first it the news, we even discussed it here, iirc
But looks the patent owners are still trying to get people to pay up, hence why the IGDA is looking for prior art :)
#3
Right now, anyone can successfully patent some obscure technique that has been in the public domain in some form or another for in some cases hundreds of years, wait 10 years until it catches on, and then sue everyone under the sun--because patent awarding authorities simply cannot know everything.
I wrote the original advanced Camera orbit cam, which uses spherical movement--and guess what? cartesian to spherical coordinate transforms have been around since Pythagoras starting talking about this radical new idea he had.
Replace "computer" with "pen" and "graphics card" with "paper", and "developers" have been using spherical "camera" movement for hundreds and hundreds of years. But for sure the original patent awarding authority didn't understand that since the patent was written in technobabble, and once the patent is on the books, you're in for a long and expensive road getting it removed.
I haven't analyzed the suit or the patent in depth at all, but saying that someone patented a method for coding spherical camera movement, and therefore no one else can code spherical camera movement is like saying that CompuServe's original patent on .gif files means that no one can use a 2 dimensional bitmap to represent information. I'm not arguing that CompuServe's patent (who owns it now by the way? I can't remember) is invalid by any means--what I'm saying is that the suit is attempting to apply a poorly issued patent in too broad a manner, for a method that has been in the public domain before our country was even founded.
03/31/2005 (6:53 am)
Our patent system must catch up to even the 20th century, not to mention the 21st, before we stop seeing rediculous things like this.Right now, anyone can successfully patent some obscure technique that has been in the public domain in some form or another for in some cases hundreds of years, wait 10 years until it catches on, and then sue everyone under the sun--because patent awarding authorities simply cannot know everything.
I wrote the original advanced Camera orbit cam, which uses spherical movement--and guess what? cartesian to spherical coordinate transforms have been around since Pythagoras starting talking about this radical new idea he had.
Replace "computer" with "pen" and "graphics card" with "paper", and "developers" have been using spherical "camera" movement for hundreds and hundreds of years. But for sure the original patent awarding authority didn't understand that since the patent was written in technobabble, and once the patent is on the books, you're in for a long and expensive road getting it removed.
I haven't analyzed the suit or the patent in depth at all, but saying that someone patented a method for coding spherical camera movement, and therefore no one else can code spherical camera movement is like saying that CompuServe's original patent on .gif files means that no one can use a 2 dimensional bitmap to represent information. I'm not arguing that CompuServe's patent (who owns it now by the way? I can't remember) is invalid by any means--what I'm saying is that the suit is attempting to apply a poorly issued patent in too broad a manner, for a method that has been in the public domain before our country was even founded.
#4
Any device using any sort of time counter (games with clock, mobile phones, watches, microwaves, cookers..etc..) will own me money!!!
03/31/2005 (6:59 am)
Now if only I could patent the concept of TIME!Any device using any sort of time counter (games with clock, mobile phones, watches, microwaves, cookers..etc..) will own me money!!!
#5
They also need to stop allowing patents for friggen generic crap like this.
03/31/2005 (7:30 am)
They should make patents like trademarks. With trademarks if you silently let people walk all over it for 10 years then pop up saying hey you all owe me money, then you lose the trademark. You have to actively maintain it.They also need to stop allowing patents for friggen generic crap like this.
#6
Well, to start with, the patent on LZW compression (/not/ on the GIF format) was owned by UNISYS, not Compuserve - Compuserve just had a license for it so they could use it in GIFs.
The US patent expired in 2003.
But! IBM patented the same algorithm later on, and that patent doesn't expire until 2006. But IBM's never used it for anything, because everyone knows it was granted by mistake in the presence of prior art and would be quickly invalidated in court.
03/31/2005 (8:28 am)
Quote:who owns it now by the way? I can't remember
Well, to start with, the patent on LZW compression (/not/ on the GIF format) was owned by UNISYS, not Compuserve - Compuserve just had a license for it so they could use it in GIFs.
The US patent expired in 2003.
But! IBM patented the same algorithm later on, and that patent doesn't expire until 2006. But IBM's never used it for anything, because everyone knows it was granted by mistake in the presence of prior art and would be quickly invalidated in court.
#7
03/31/2005 (8:48 am)
Grrrrr....
#8
03/31/2005 (8:50 am)
Yeah ... but of course if you came up with some brilliant software routine you (I know I would) want to profit from it and get recognition for it. A patent protects that ability. 
#9
I'm not against patents for software, as long as this standard is upheld. If I devote my life to pushing the envelope of software design and that leads me to a nontrivial invention, even if only in code, that should be patentable. I deserve both credit and financial benefit from that work. Far fewer great innovations will come from altruism than from commercial interest.
Software designs ought to be like secret formulas, trade secrets. And trade secrets are only protected if they cannot be easily discovered by observation or examination. In the case of software, observation or examination refers to the functionality of the software, not the code itself. Compression algorithms, encryption algorithms, these kinds of things would pass that test. A camera control algorithm would not.
03/31/2005 (10:33 am)
Patents aren't intended as a way to guarantee control and wealth to one individual. They're intended as a way to encourage innovation. At the very least, a patent must be non-trivial, because there needs to be a very heavy price in the creation of the patentable design. Without this high price, no encouragement is needed other than personal use. And this is a perfect example of that. Anyone who needs such a system can design it and put it to use. Can the same be said for the lightbulb? It's amazing that these two "inventions" are even in the same category.I'm not against patents for software, as long as this standard is upheld. If I devote my life to pushing the envelope of software design and that leads me to a nontrivial invention, even if only in code, that should be patentable. I deserve both credit and financial benefit from that work. Far fewer great innovations will come from altruism than from commercial interest.
Software designs ought to be like secret formulas, trade secrets. And trade secrets are only protected if they cannot be easily discovered by observation or examination. In the case of software, observation or examination refers to the functionality of the software, not the code itself. Compression algorithms, encryption algorithms, these kinds of things would pass that test. A camera control algorithm would not.
#10
03/31/2005 (1:02 pm)
Heh, a programmer friend of mine was responsible for the drop down menu. Maybe I should tell him to take a break from his Hermit lifestyle and have some fun :) 
#11
a pathfinding algorithm, AI techniques... maybe an entire camera code control system yes... but not a method to control a camera... at least this is what I think :)
03/31/2005 (6:37 pm)
There is a line when code and technique becomes a personal peice of artwork... full algorithms and certain techniques fall under that... this seemingly doesn't... its not enough originality to warrant a personal peice of art... which is what I think the patent system protects...a pathfinding algorithm, AI techniques... maybe an entire camera code control system yes... but not a method to control a camera... at least this is what I think :)
#12
You all screwed MMMMUUUHHAAAAA
04/01/2005 (2:00 pm)
I just patented the "for" loop and finalizing the "while" and "do... while". .... You all screwed MMMMUUUHHAAAAA
#13
but here is microsoft's patent application for the operation 'not equals'.
04/01/2005 (2:12 pm)
I'm sure many folks have seen this,but here is microsoft's patent application for the operation 'not equals'.
#14
That's frankly ridiculous. Be able to patent something soo obvious. Realy the patent system is completely crazy in US.
04/01/2005 (11:02 pm)
Wonder when in US somebody patent "pee while standing" ? You all be sued to your last cents.....That's frankly ridiculous. Be able to patent something soo obvious. Realy the patent system is completely crazy in US.
#15
04/02/2005 (1:58 pm)
Here is a thought... how about someone just thinks up all the concepts that could be useful in games such as foliage engines, shader methods, etc. and comes up with as many ways as possible to actually use them and then patents them all so that everyone has to either use some freakishly obscure method in order to do it or give him the patent fee. Sounds like an awesome scam to me... just like this one. I can't help but wonder how many similar patents that this company has :P
#16
The claims, and that is the only important part, are overly broad and the patent specifically refers to a terminal in it's abstract, to wit:
"A graphics display terminal performs a pan operation with respect to a view motion center to effectuate spherical panning, thereby providing perspective and non-perspective views. Three dimensional instructions stored in terminal memory are re-transformed in accordance with a panned direction. Also a zoom feature is provided so that displayed images may be magnified as desired. "
The USPTO would have been inclined to grant it in the context of the mid 80's where he was describing a method for off loading a process from a central computer to speed up panning on a 'dumb' terminal. One could ask the question, "would the patent be granted then if the applicant was describing a mainframe process? No, it was prior art.
Today the PC is the mainframe and hence no coverage.
04/22/2005 (10:45 am)
I don't think we have to worry about this one because:The claims, and that is the only important part, are overly broad and the patent specifically refers to a terminal in it's abstract, to wit:
"A graphics display terminal performs a pan operation with respect to a view motion center to effectuate spherical panning, thereby providing perspective and non-perspective views. Three dimensional instructions stored in terminal memory are re-transformed in accordance with a panned direction. Also a zoom feature is provided so that displayed images may be magnified as desired. "
The USPTO would have been inclined to grant it in the context of the mid 80's where he was describing a method for off loading a process from a central computer to speed up panning on a 'dumb' terminal. One could ask the question, "would the patent be granted then if the applicant was describing a mainframe process? No, it was prior art.
Today the PC is the mainframe and hence no coverage.
#17
For a good read on the type of AVG shenanigans go to:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/maney/2004-11-23-maney_x.htm
04/22/2005 (11:29 am)
Did a little more research, and find that this AVG, LLC bought up a few patents consigned to the dustbins by others like Tektronix, Inc., who must have seen them as obsolete in light of today's technologies. That might mean their legal teams have already look closely at this, or not.For a good read on the type of AVG shenanigans go to:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/maney/2004-11-23-maney_x.htm
#18
04/24/2005 (9:26 am)
Even if the patent holders are in the right (Hah!), every major software developer stands to lose so much they'll just hold the bastards in court until they die.
#19
isTo()
isSo()
Similar to Microsofts IsNot but opposite meanings.
couldBe()
asks the computer to speculate. Ex. couldBe("Cold in Hell");
noWay()
Stops all computer crashes. If the PC receives a bad command that it doesn't recognize, it shunts it directly to noWay()
doLater()
Similar to schedule but the PC chooses a convienent time to do it.
AfterAWhile()
Similar to do later, but must wait a predetermined time first.
ShouldBe()
Send some variables and a result and have the ShouldBe() function determine true or false and if false makes whatever correction is needed. Ex. ShouldBe(x + 2 = 5); would return "3 + 2 = 5"
ShouldNotBe()
Opposite of ShouldBe()
IsNotButShouldBe()
Computer takes in a figure that is not what it should be and determines how to make it that... Ex. IsNotButShouldBe(6 + 20 = 100); would return "100"
forgetAboutIt();
Takes in a variable and forgets it. Could be combined with doLater() "doLater(forgetAboutIt(%x));" for an end result of forgetting some random time later.
goBack()
Similar to "goto" but only goes back from where you've gone to. Different than return in that it doesn't terminate the current function.
makeMad()
Chooses from a list of predetermined functions designed to make the end user very upset. I know Microsoft has a monopoly on this, but they never got the patent. Could be combined with other functions for variable effects
Ex.. if(%user.IsNotButShouldBe(doLater(makeMad(%user)))) or AfterAWhile(makeMad(%user));
isPatented()
Checks a function to find out if it's patented and then submits a patent claim if not. Can be combined for variable effects. Ex. if(IsNotButShouldBe(isPatented(%function)))
andOr
Compares two operands, objects, or variables, and always returns true unless both do not exist or both are false.
if(%this andOr %that)
The next two could actually be handy
Within(x1, x2, p);
compares 2 variables against a parameter for a true/false return...
Within(10, 5, 50) = true because 10 is within 50 points of 5
Within(5, 50, 10) = false because 5 is not within 10 points of 50
until loop
Similar to a "while" loop but starts out looking for a certain specification and does not need to terminate before other functionality can continue. The loop is run every game cycle(1000ms) until the parameter is reached and then it terminates. Useful for AI players or various other functions.
until(%x = 53) { doThis(); }
until(getSimTime() = 3600000) { runGame(); }
until(%player.isDead()) { followPlayer(%player); }
04/24/2005 (6:03 pm)
Hmmmm, I think I'll patent...isTo()
isSo()
Similar to Microsofts IsNot but opposite meanings.
couldBe()
asks the computer to speculate. Ex. couldBe("Cold in Hell");
noWay()
Stops all computer crashes. If the PC receives a bad command that it doesn't recognize, it shunts it directly to noWay()
doLater()
Similar to schedule but the PC chooses a convienent time to do it.
AfterAWhile()
Similar to do later, but must wait a predetermined time first.
ShouldBe()
Send some variables and a result and have the ShouldBe() function determine true or false and if false makes whatever correction is needed. Ex. ShouldBe(x + 2 = 5); would return "3 + 2 = 5"
ShouldNotBe()
Opposite of ShouldBe()
IsNotButShouldBe()
Computer takes in a figure that is not what it should be and determines how to make it that... Ex. IsNotButShouldBe(6 + 20 = 100); would return "100"
forgetAboutIt();
Takes in a variable and forgets it. Could be combined with doLater() "doLater(forgetAboutIt(%x));" for an end result of forgetting some random time later.
goBack()
Similar to "goto" but only goes back from where you've gone to. Different than return in that it doesn't terminate the current function.
makeMad()
Chooses from a list of predetermined functions designed to make the end user very upset. I know Microsoft has a monopoly on this, but they never got the patent. Could be combined with other functions for variable effects
Ex.. if(%user.IsNotButShouldBe(doLater(makeMad(%user)))) or AfterAWhile(makeMad(%user));
isPatented()
Checks a function to find out if it's patented and then submits a patent claim if not. Can be combined for variable effects. Ex. if(IsNotButShouldBe(isPatented(%function)))
andOr
Compares two operands, objects, or variables, and always returns true unless both do not exist or both are false.
if(%this andOr %that)
The next two could actually be handy
Within(x1, x2, p);
compares 2 variables against a parameter for a true/false return...
Within(10, 5, 50) = true because 10 is within 50 points of 5
Within(5, 50, 10) = false because 5 is not within 10 points of 50
until loop
Similar to a "while" loop but starts out looking for a certain specification and does not need to terminate before other functionality can continue. The loop is run every game cycle(1000ms) until the parameter is reached and then it terminates. Useful for AI players or various other functions.
until(%x = 53) { doThis(); }
until(getSimTime() = 3600000) { runGame(); }
until(%player.isDead()) { followPlayer(%player); }
#20
One of the unfortunate things is that with any always-costly lawsuit brought against game publishers, whether or not the publisher is held at fault, the publisher tends to create more restrictions for their developers. The hefty liability that most developers already take on with publisher deals is nicely covered in that lastwords_Mar05 link at the top of this thread.
Any business on shaky financial ground (and there are a few game publishers in this category), will do whatever they can to make their quarterly numbers. If a lawsuit like '690 goes anywhere, I could see some of them trying to bleed certain developers for litigation costs.
Just more crap making it harder for good games to get made with the current game industry model....
05/06/2005 (11:21 am)
Game publishers are typically very conservative when it comes to taking risks, especially concerning any legal issues. One of the unfortunate things is that with any always-costly lawsuit brought against game publishers, whether or not the publisher is held at fault, the publisher tends to create more restrictions for their developers. The hefty liability that most developers already take on with publisher deals is nicely covered in that lastwords_Mar05 link at the top of this thread.
Any business on shaky financial ground (and there are a few game publishers in this category), will do whatever they can to make their quarterly numbers. If a lawsuit like '690 goes anywhere, I could see some of them trying to bleed certain developers for litigation costs.
Just more crap making it harder for good games to get made with the current game industry model....
Torque Owner Jonathan Rose