ATI patent on hardware rendering of shading languages

[DeanoC]

A graphics processing system includes at least one processor; and memory, coupled to the at least one processor, the memory including instructions that when executed on the at least one processor, causes the at least one processor to: receive a high level shading description data of a scene to be rendered; determine low level shading stream in response to the high level shading description data, wherein the low level shading data conforms to rendering hardware constraints; and provide the low level shading data to an application for hardware rendering. A graphics processing method includes receiving a high level shading description data of a scene to be rendered; determining low level shading data in response to the high level shading description data, wherein the low level shading data conforms to rendering hardware constraints; and providing the low level shading stream to an application for hardware rendering.

Shading language interface and method

 

[bloodbob]

Umm correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't this effect OpenGl 2.0? I don't see anywhere saying that ATI has contributed this royalty free for use in opengl 2.0.

This is why the EU should say NO to software patents.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

Or hardware patents.

I think patents are disgusting, unfortauntely patents are also the only thing protecting business from other business stealing their ideas. Quite a dillemma.

I think people should be given credit for their ideas but their ideas should also be used freely by anyone in a free and happy world.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

Or hardware patents.

I think patents are disgusting, unfortauntely patents are also the only thing protecting business from other business stealing their ideas. Quite a dillemma.

I think people should be given credit for their ideas but their ideas should also be used freely by anyone in a free and happy world.

The patent system is not perfect, especially in the US where it has been going bonkers in the last few years, but if it wasn't for patents, you'd just find any good idea would simply be taken by the big multinationals, and no small companies would get a look in. If you want to live in a world without some kind of legal protection for people's work, we'd only be getting sky high prices from Intel, IBM and Microsoft, as no-one else would be able to survive.

 

[K.I.L.E.R]

What could we do to make the patent system better?

Or hardware patents.

I think patents are disgusting, unfortauntely patents are also the only thing protecting business from other business stealing their ideas. Quite a dillemma.

I think people should be given credit for their ideas but their ideas should also be used freely by anyone in a free and happy world.

The patent system is not perfect, especially in the US where it has been going bonkers in the last few years, but if it wasn't for patents, you'd just find any good idea would simply be taken by the big multinationals, and no small companies would get a look in. If you want to live in a world without some kind of legal protection for people's work, we'd only be getting sky high prices from Intel, IBM and Microsoft, as no-one else would be able to survive.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

What could we do to make the patent system better?

Well that's a much larger discussion. Particularly in the US (where patents have rocketed in the last few years), the patent office doesn't have the people or expertise to examine every patent, so they grant almost everything and then wait for the patents to get challenged in the courts. This of course plays into the hands of the big companies who try to patent everything, and then use their muscle in court. Instead of patents being a way for the little guy to safeguard their own work, it becomes an expensive court battle between the big companies who can afford to fight it out.

I think the first step would be to examine patents more carefully, and to disallow invalid ones. The problem is that patenting is expensive enough now for the little guy, so increased costs might again skew patents towards big companies.

I think there might also be an argument for having shorter times on patents, so the first company gets a few years to take advantage and licence their ideas, and then they get opened out for the good of everyone, the same as what happens with drugs patents. This would prevent (for instance) oil companies buying up patents to prevent competing technologies from coming out.

 

[nutball]

I think the first step would be to examine patents more carefully, and to disallow invalid ones. The problem is that patenting is expensive enough now for the little guy, so increased costs might again skew patents towards big companies.

Well the cost issue could be addressed by charging different fees for patents in a creative way to ensure that larger organisations ended up paying more money to get their patents, and ensure the little guy doesn't get screwed. This all sounds a bit Pink-O-Commie to be adopted in the US though.

I think there might also be an argument for having shorter times on patents, so the first company gets a few years to take advantage and licence their ideas, and then they get opened out for the good of everyone, the same as what happens with drugs patents. This would prevent (for instance) oil companies buying up patents to prevent competing technologies from coming out.

That might work, so long as the work or ideas you're trying to patent aren't too far ahread of their time.

 

[ERP]

As I see it the patent system (especially in the US) has some significant problems.

The first is that applications are no longer properly vetted, so you get rificulously broad, obvious patents that get approved.

The Second is that in patent law challenging a granted patent is an uphill battle. It is assumed that the patent was properly vetted and the burden of proof is on the callenger, making it a very expensive proposition.

The final one is a problem with all patent law, it leaves no scope for simultaneous (or independant) invention, if I independantly come up with something that is already patented, you have violate the patent just aswell as if you read the patent and copied it (actually damages are lower).

Personally I have a problem with the entire concept of intellectual property especially as it pertains to Software, and the recent explosion of IP companies really doesn't help the system any.

 

[DemoCoder]

Bahaha, they've patented compiling. Boy is this egregious. They cite SGI's "software" version as prior art, but the ATI patent was filed after prior art for HLSL<->LLSL+real-time HW already existed in the industry.

Are they going to license this patent to ARB royalty free? Are they going to license this to Microsoft royalty free?

 

[gkar1]

Bahaha, they've patented compiling. Boy is this egregious. They cite SGI's "software" version as prior art, but the ATI patent was filed after prior art for HLSL<->LLSL+real-time HW already existed in the industry.

Are they going to license this patent to ARB royalty free? Are they going to license this to Microsoft royalty free?

Yup very similar to what NVDA tried a couple years back IIRC.

 

[Martillo1]

proof

 

[nutball]

Man, I'm going to patent breathing. I'll make a mint!

 

[Simon F]

Man, I'm going to patent breathing. I'll make a mint!

Do you mean for "fresh breath" breathing? I think Trebor, Lifesavers, or Polo might have prior art.

 

[zidane1strife]

rificulously broad, obvious patents

That simply depends on the individual, a mentally retarded person might find even the most obvious of things practically non-obvious, and extremely complex. The opposite is true , a more advance mind depending on how advanced it was would see even the most complex and non-obvious, to most humans, as obvious broad and simple.

Further, the truth is one is practically discovering something, not creating something new, and it's often done based on prior knowledge or inventions. It's pretty ridiculous.

 

[nutball]

Man, I'm going to patent breathing. I'll make a mint!

Do you mean for "fresh breath" breathing? I think Trebor, Lifesavers, or Polo might have prior art.

Hehe, no I mean the in-out type of breathing. Can't wait to start serving those "cease & desist" orders on patent lawyers. Stop breathing now, or face the consequences!