creative labs teaches Carmack a thing or two about shadows?

ERP said:
Simon,
while I agree that we need a system like the patent system, something that doesn't allow for independant invention is just totally flawed in my book.
Click to expand...
You just have to live with it. That happened to me where I filed a patent not long after someone else <shrug>. Luckily I had some extra ideas in my patent so was at least able to keep those.
I'm not even sure that there is a fair workable system.
Click to expand...
There probably isn't but I suppose you have to you learn to live with it. Not everyone can come first in a race/competition though many may deserve to. <shrug>
 
Razor1 said:
thats what I don't get there is a hundred different ways to write the same algo, how is it possible to patent all types of methods? It shouldn't be. If that was the case, If go and patent my 3d engine no else can make a 3d engine and sell it for a profit.
Click to expand...
That's because you don't understand patents. You have to describe the idea that makes your invention unique. That is what gets protected.
 
SimonF said:
Besides, it'd be stupid to patent something that didn't work
Click to expand...
That doesn't stop people from doing it (or at least try to do it) though.

There's a bunch of funny patent applications in the US patent office, including one on perpetum mobile engine.
And I recall at one point some company apparently patented a lossless compression algorythm that 'guarantees' 50% compression on every pass, any kind of data... - yes, they claimed infinite lossless compression :?.
 
Fafalada said:
SimonF said:
Besides, it'd be stupid to patent something that didn't work
Click to expand...
That doesn't stop people from doing it (or at least try to do it) though.
Click to expand...
I bet they're the same people who think dictionaries have had the word "gullible" removed from them.

Well I suppose it keeps the patent lawyers' luxury cars running. :)
 
Fafalada said:
SimonF said:
Besides, it'd be stupid to patent something that didn't work
Click to expand...
That doesn't stop people from doing it (or at least try to do it) though.

There's a bunch of funny patent applications in the US patent office, including one on perpetum mobile engine.
And I recall at one point some company apparently patented a lossless compression algorythm that 'guarantees' 50% compression on every pass, any kind of data... - yes, they claimed infinite lossless compression :?.
Click to expand...

The problem with the U.S. patent office issuing bogus patents is compounded by the cost of getting a patent invalidated.

IMO the solution is clear, invalidation should be handled by the patent office itself. Anyone requesting an invalidation should produce evidence to prior art. If the patent is invalidated the patent office pays processing fees (they b0rked it up in the first place afterall), if the patent stands the entity requesting the invalidation pays the fees.

Cheers
Gubbi
 
Gubbi said:
The problem with the U.S. patent office issuing bogus patents is compounded by the cost of getting a patent invalidated.

IMO the solution is clear, invalidation should be handled by the patent office itself. Anyone requesting an invalidation should produce evidence to prior art. If the patent is invalidated the patent office pays processing fees (they b0rked it up in the first place afterall), if the patent stands the entity requesting the invalidation pays the fees.

Cheers
Gubbi
Click to expand...
Technically, it is the duty of the patenter to inform the patent office if prior art comes to light and modify (abandon?) the patent as required. I've done this but I guess not everyone does.
 
Simon F said:
Technically, it is the duty of the patenter to inform the patent office if prior art comes to light and modify (abandon?) the patent as required. I've done this but I guess not everyone does.
Click to expand...

Having legal entities police themselves is always a bad idea IMHO. I doubt everybody is as honest (or enlightened) as you.

Cheers
Gubbi
 
The penalties are quite severe. I believe that not declaring known prior art or the failure to carry out a reasonable search for prior art yourself can carry a prison sentence...
 
Dio said:
The penalties are quite severe. I believe that not declaring known prior art or the failure to carry out a reasonable search for prior art yourself can carry a prison sentence...
Click to expand...

Do you think that would ever be used against a major corperation like creative? I very much doubt it I'm sure its only used when an individual or small company tries to take on someone like creative with a patent they own.

Its a bit like if say the MPAA stole an image from my homepage do you think the US government would use the Patriot Act against the MPAA? no but if someone is distrubting Stargate epsiodes on a website I'm sure the government will quite willing use the patroit act against them.

Their are laws for people and their a laws for multi-national companies.
 
Fafalada said:
And I recall at one point some company apparently patented a lossless compression algorythm that 'guarantees' 50% compression on every pass, any kind of data... - yes, they claimed infinite lossless compression :?.
Click to expand...

Did this company maybe try to scam investors?
 
Cryect said:
Fafalada said:
And I recall at one point some company apparently patented a lossless compression algorythm that 'guarantees' 50% compression on every pass, any kind of data... - yes, they claimed infinite lossless compression :?.
Click to expand...

Did this company maybe try to scam investors?
Click to expand...

Don't patents have to, uh, work?

Otherwise, I could patent a perpetual motion machine, or a fountain of eternal youth, or headgear that summons demons from the Twisting Nether. Happy, singing and dancing demons. They are all as likely to work as an infinite lossless compression scheme.
 
Simon F said:
Razor1 said:
thats what I don't get there is a hundred different ways to write the same algo, how is it possible to patent all types of methods? It shouldn't be. If that was the case, If go and patent my 3d engine no else can make a 3d engine and sell it for a profit.
Click to expand...
That's because you don't understand patents. You have to describe the idea that makes your invention unique. That is what gets protected.
Click to expand...

The basis or fundementals of the algo is different any good lawyer will shoot that down. The outcome is meaningless if the basis is not the same.

There are very few patent cases that are won by a patent holder when it comes to source code infingment unless its a 1 to 1 copy or the secondary product is hurting the over all market of both products.

Opps forgot to add Id probably didn't want to go into litigation since the case of that would be much higher then actaully adding in the EAX sound engine. Why spend million on a law suit when you can add some code for 50k and both parties are happy?
 
No, patents aren't required to work. I've never understood where people have got this idea from. You can come up with an idea and patent before you have any idea if it does what you think it does. The reasoning behind this is maybe you have a great idea but you need time to develop and research it out. A patent helps give in theory to little inventors the opportunity to due this while having more protection than a trade secret.
 
BoddoZerg said:
Don't patents have to, uh, work?

Otherwise, I could patent a perpetual motion machine, or a fountain of eternal youth, or headgear that summons demons from the Twisting Nether. Happy, singing and dancing demons. They are all as likely to work as an infinite lossless compression scheme.
Click to expand...

Yeah you could, and if someone makes it work in the future, you could claim royalites.

There was a story I read last year about some clever engineer that had patented some particular thoretical tech (I think it was something to do with methods of making transistors) in the 60's or 70's. It took 30 years, but as soon as industry figured out how to actually do this work, which is used almost everywhere now, he became a multimillionaire based on his patents
 
I think perpetual energy machines need to be proven to work these days other then that I don't think you really need proof.
 
BRiT said:
I do not know any engineers who think that software patents are or should be valid.
Click to expand...

I think software patents should be valid to some extents. You should be able to patent sufficient advanced and unique stuff. I don't have any problems with say patents on say an audio compression format like .mp3, or patents on encryption algoritms, or other kinds of software based inventions that require large investments in terms of time and/or money for the research. I don't think we need one-click purchase patents and all the other crap though.
 
I think yellowbellies like Humus and Simon should not participate in this discussion if they arent willing to actually give their opinion on whether this specific patent should have been granted or not :) I personally think that the evidence of independent invention indicates that the search for practical stencil based shadows in practical applications (as opposed to the previous more academic ones) would have led a lot of people "skilled in the arts" to the same conclusion, hence it is obvious.
 
I don't think this patent should be valid. The technique isn't all that different from regular stencil shadows, and not advanced enough to be worth a patent. And the investment in terms of time and money for those who did the research work likely wasn't that much either to motivate it from an investment protection point of view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top