Beyond3D Forum

kyleb · 27-Jul-2004, 05:24

Quote:

"Working together with id Software, an industry icon, provides Creative with an exciting opportunity to enhance one of the hottest game engines around... We are also pleased with the agreement relating to Creative's patented shadowing technique and id's cutting-edge 3D graphics DOOM 3 engine."

http://bluesnews.com/cgi-bin/board.p...threadid=50329

im guessing it's some 3dlabs tech, but does anyone have any more info on this?

AndrewM · 27-Jul-2004, 05:30

Sounds like PR rubbish to me..

Chalnoth · 27-Jul-2004, 06:13

Oh my God. That sounds very much like Creative was threatening to sue id software over their shadowing algorithm. That's just so very wrong in so many ways. But it does seem like it was all worked out....

Cryect · 27-Jul-2004, 06:46

Definately sounds like it. Carmack has never seemed so hot about EAX and can't blame him. Sounds like Creative was just trying to get them to add EAX.

Interesting how Creative is putting it in and not id Software

anaqer · 27-Jul-2004, 08:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cryect

Interesting how Creative is putting it in and not id Software

Kinda like how they didn't add EAX to UT via official patch but rather through a separate install.

991060 · 27-Jul-2004, 09:13

Since when shadow volume is patented?

Do I need to pay money if using it in my demo? :P

Laa-Yosh · 27-Jul-2004, 09:21

Considering that Carmack has always been against software patents, this must make him pretty pissed off... Creative should not try to mess with him, id might strike back with their next engine...

DeanoC · 27-Jul-2004, 10:08

The technique known as 'Carmacks reverse' was in fact developed and patented before it was known as Carmacks reverse. Carmack seems to re-discovered it but thats the problem with software patents, you still owe something to someone without even knowing it

If your using reverse stencil shadows in anything then yes, there are legal issues you should talk to a lawyer about.

Nappe1 · 27-Jul-2004, 10:15

Anyone recals what sound cards were used when first rolling demos were showed from Doom3?

Just a another reason for a problems between iD and Creative.

MikeC · 27-Jul-2004, 10:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeanoC

The technique known as 'Carmacks reverse' was in fact developed and patented before it was known as Carmacks reverse.

Would you be referring to this e-mail about shadow volumes that Carmack send to NVIDIA's Mark Kilgard back in 2000?

http://developer.nvidia.com/attach/6832

Simon F · 27-Jul-2004, 11:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by 991060

Since when shadow volume is patented?

Do I need to pay money if using it in my demo? :P

No, not shadow volumes per se. The Creative patent is to do with the idea of testing for being in shadow from "far to near" (aka ZFail rather than ZPass) which then avoids having to deal with the problem with holes when the shadow volume goes through the front clipping plane.

Simon F · 27-Jul-2004, 11:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeC

Would you be referring to this e-mail about shadow volumes that Carmack send to NVIDIA's Mark Kilgard back in 2000?

From that email

Quote:

There are cases where real, honest volume clipping must take place....
..
Anything that requires finding convex hulls in realtime is starting to
sound like a Bad Idea.

I sweated over this for a while, with the code getting grosser and grosser,
but then I had an idea for a different direction.

Ironically, there is a really elegant solution to this clipping/capping problem... but it is also patented.

max-pain · 27-Jul-2004, 12:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nappe1

Anyone recals what sound cards were used when first rolling demos were showed from Doom3?

Just a another reason for a problems between iD and Creative.

Philips Acoustic Edge was used at Quakecon 2002.

SteveHill · 27-Jul-2004, 13:15

Quote:

Ironically, there is a really elegant solution to this clipping/capping problem... but it is also patented.

Sounds interesting; would you mind elaborating or digging up a link? (I've not had much luck with patent searching in the past.)

Simon F · 27-Jul-2004, 13:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveHill

Quote:

Ironically, there is a really elegant solution to this clipping/capping problem... but it is also patented.

Sounds interesting; would you mind elaborating or digging up a link? (I've not had much luck with patent searching in the past.)

It was used in the Elan T&L chip that was part of Naomi2 arcade system. The basic idea is that as the clipping is actually being done against the front clip plane, the generated edges are used to construct the cap.

SteveHill · 27-Jul-2004, 13:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon F

It was used in the Elan T&L chip that was part of Naomi2 arcade system. The basic idea is that as the clipping is actually being done against the front clip plane, the generated edges are used to construct the cap.

Ah, neat

. Cheers.

Razor1 · 27-Jul-2004, 14:53

Carmack never patented his algo did he?

Simon F · 27-Jul-2004, 14:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor1

Carmack never patented his algo did he?

He wouldn't have been able to anyway because it was patented before he thought of it.

Chalnoth · 27-Jul-2004, 15:03

Well, if you ask me, his little writeup that has been posted at nVidia's site for ages would be reason alone for that patent to be thrown out. Too bad it so damned hard to get a patent thrown out....

Razor1 · 27-Jul-2004, 15:21

fighting a software patent law suit is a bitch though, end results are the same, methodolgy is the same but the math behind is different then the patent can go through, thats my understanding. So I guess software patents aren't that effective.

Tim Murray · 27-Jul-2004, 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon F

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor1

Carmack never patented his algo did he?

He wouldn't have been able to anyway because it was patented before he thought of it.

Hasn't really stopped any other software patents... ever.

MfA · 27-Jul-2004, 16:26

The only way this is a valid patent is if they are claiming undisclosed invention as a way to contest the prior art from Sim Dietrich (he did a presentation on it before Carmack and before the filing date, more info here). Since he says he posted about this method for the first time on a developer board at Creative this makes me very suspicuous.

That they filed for the patent ala, but now they are trying to shake down developers? Fuck that, any self respecting website should nail these fuckers to the wall if this is true. Starting with B3D hopefully :) If Reverend is reading this, could you ask Carmack about this perhaps?

A company which is so closely linked to the gamer community should know better ... this is unacceptable behaviour IMO. They can jump high and low about the law, but fact remains even if their patent is legally valid the fact that the method was independently invented before their patent was even filed and again before it was published shows the patent is not just. I think websites in a position to punish unjust behaviour which sets such a dangerous precident should not be fooled by talk of legality. Just cause its legal doesnt make it right.

Marco

PS. the US patent system is so open to abuse ... allowing undisclosed invention as a way to gain a patent even if someone else discovers the same independently and produces prior art before you file is so open to abuse, there are a few downsides to first-to-publish as far as patents are concerned, but nothing compared to the stupidity of the US system.

Xmas · 27-Jul-2004, 16:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon F

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveHill

Quote:

Ironically, there is a really elegant solution to this clipping/capping problem... but it is also patented.

Sounds interesting; would you mind elaborating or digging up a link? (I've not had much luck with patent searching in the past.)

It was used in the Elan T&L chip that was part of Naomi2 arcade system. The basic idea is that as the clipping is actually being done against the front clip plane, the generated edges are used to construct the cap.

There is another elegant solution for that problem, which isn't patented AFAIK: depth clamp

Simon F · 27-Jul-2004, 16:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chalnoth

Well, if you ask me, his little writeup that has been posted at nVidia's site for ages would be reason alone for that patent to be thrown out. Too bad it so damned hard to get a patent thrown out....

What's that got to do with it? The patent was filed before Carmack re-invented it** and that is what counts in such matters.

**to the best of my knowledge but I'd be happy to see evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MfA

PS. the US patent system is so open to abuse ... allowing undisclosed invention as a way to gain a patent even if someone else discovers the same independently and produces prior art before you file is so open to abuse, there are a few downsides to first-to-publish as far as patents are concerned, but nothing compared to the stupidity of the US system.

I'm not sure what you are saying here but, IIRC, in this case the patent was filed before publication.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xmas

There is another elegant solution for that problem, which isn't patented AFAIK: depth clamp

I didn't think that was terribly elegant at all :
(a) You can't use the standard projection techniques
(b) You potentially need a lot more fill rate.

MfA · 27-Jul-2004, 16:47

Im talking about Sim's presentation which is from march 1999. As I said, the only way the method from that presentation could be covered by the patent is if Creative uses undisclosed invention as a way to establish their rights. That is possible since patent rights in the US are based on first to invent ... a very poor system indeed IMO.

27-Jul-2004, 06:13	#3
Chalnoth Join Date: May 2002 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,678	Oh my God. That sounds very much like Creative was threatening to sue id software over their shadowing algorithm. That's just so very wrong in so many ways. But it does seem like it was all worked out.... __________________ April 20, 1979 - America must never forget.

27-Jul-2004, 10:15	#9
Nappe1 lp0 On Fire! Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: South east finland Posts: 1,527	Anyone recals what sound cards were used when first rolling demos were showed from Doom3? Just a another reason for a problems between iD and Creative. __________________ Nappe1 of Division & Future Vision Founder of AF3DE

27-Jul-2004, 15:03	#19
Chalnoth Join Date: May 2002 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,678	Well, if you ask me, his little writeup that has been posted at nVidia's site for ages would be reason alone for that patent to be thrown out. Too bad it so damned hard to get a patent thrown out.... __________________ April 20, 1979 - America must never forget.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Creative claims similar shadowing tech as id Software	Reverend	Beyond3D News	265	22-Sep-2004 09:51
John Carmack talked @ GDC	991060	3D Architectures & Chips	113	30-Mar-2004 19:32
John Carmack's press conference at E3!	Deepak	Console Technology	16	16-May-2003 05:05
A thought on X-Box 2 and Creative Labs.	Brimstone	3D Architectures & Chips	106	13-May-2002 11:05
Creative buys 3D Labs	nAo	3D Architectures & Chips	1	11-Mar-2002 17:48

27-Jul-2004, 05:30	#2
AndrewM Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: Brisbane, QLD, Australia Posts: 219	Sounds like PR rubbish to me..

27-Jul-2004, 06:46	#4
Cryect Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 673	Definately sounds like it. Carmack has never seemed so hot about EAX and can't blame him. Sounds like Creative was just trying to get them to add EAX. Interesting how Creative is putting it in and not id Software

27-Jul-2004, 09:13	#6
991060 Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Beijing Posts: 640	Since when shadow volume is patented? Do I need to pay money if using it in my demo? :P

27-Jul-2004, 09:21	#7
Laa-Yosh member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 7,507	Considering that Carmack has always been against software patents, this must make him pretty pissed off... Creative should not try to mess with him, id might strike back with their next engine...

27-Jul-2004, 10:08	#8
DeanoC Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Sheppey, UK Posts: 1,439	The technique known as 'Carmacks reverse' was in fact developed and patented before it was known as Carmacks reverse. Carmack seems to re-discovered it but thats the problem with software patents, you still owe something to someone without even knowing it If your using reverse stencil shadows in anything then yes, there are legal issues you should talk to a lawyer about.

27-Jul-2004, 14:53	#17
Razor1 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: NY, NY Posts: 2,680	Carmack never patented his algo did he?

27-Jul-2004, 15:21	#20
Razor1 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: NY, NY Posts: 2,680	fighting a software patent law suit is a bitch though, end results are the same, methodolgy is the same but the math behind is different then the patent can go through, thats my understanding. So I guess software patents aren't that effective.

27-Jul-2004, 16:26	#22
MfA Regular Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5,228	The only way this is a valid patent is if they are claiming undisclosed invention as a way to contest the prior art from Sim Dietrich (he did a presentation on it before Carmack and before the filing date, more info here). Since he says he posted about this method for the first time on a developer board at Creative this makes me very suspicuous. That they filed for the patent ala, but now they are trying to shake down developers? Fuck that, any self respecting website should nail these fuckers to the wall if this is true. Starting with B3D hopefully :) If Reverend is reading this, could you ask Carmack about this perhaps? A company which is so closely linked to the gamer community should know better ... this is unacceptable behaviour IMO. They can jump high and low about the law, but fact remains even if their patent is legally valid the fact that the method was independently invented before their patent was even filed and again before it was published shows the patent is not just. I think websites in a position to punish unjust behaviour which sets such a dangerous precident should not be fooled by talk of legality. Just cause its legal doesnt make it right. Marco PS. the US patent system is so open to abuse ... allowing undisclosed invention as a way to gain a patent even if someone else discovers the same independently and produces prior art before you file is so open to abuse, there are a few downsides to first-to-publish as far as patents are concerned, but nothing compared to the stupidity of the US system.

27-Jul-2004, 16:47	#25
MfA Regular Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5,228	Im talking about Sim's presentation which is from march 1999. As I said, the only way the method from that presentation could be covered by the patent is if Creative uses undisclosed invention as a way to establish their rights. That is possible since patent rights in the US are based on first to invent ... a very poor system indeed IMO.

Beyond3D Forum

Welcome, Unregistered.