Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Patents

A Lawyer's View on the OpenGL Patent Mess 344

Posted by Hemos from the divide-and-conquer dept.
PDAJames writes "This article has an interesting take on Microsoft's claims on OpenGL technology. An IP lawyer says that Microsoft could make things difficult for OpenGL if they feel like it, basically. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Lawyer's View on the OpenGL Patent Mess More

A Lawyer's View on the OpenGL Patent Mess

Comments Filter:

  • Incredible Insight! (Score:3, Funny)

    by maynard-lag ( 235813 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @03:26PM (#3872777)
    Can you believe that since Microsoft owns some of the patents that went into OpenGL, they can *gasp* make life difficult for implementers of OpenGL?! Boy it's a good thing we have those lawyers to keep us straight.

    • Re:Incredible Insight! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Yohahn ( 8680 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @03:43PM (#3872928)
      Actually one of the most interesting things that was pointed out was the question of the legality of selling something that was already agreed to be released in an open manner.

      They agreed to release the patent to OpenGL, so can they sell it to somebody who is going to "un-release" it?

      If this is what Microsoft and SGI did, it's an interesting problem.

      • Re:Incredible Insight! (Score:5, Funny)

        by Catskul ( 323619 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @03:50PM (#3872977) Homepage
        I really dont understand why the parent was modded as funny. It is a serious point.
        • I really dont understand why the parent was modded as funny. It is a serious point.

          Because it's funny that the parent was moderated as funny, just as it's even more funny that your response to the funny moderation was in turn moderated as funny, and that's pretty funny!

          • Because it's funny that the parent was moderated as funny, just as it's even more funny that your response to the funny moderation was in turn moderated as funny, and that's pretty funny!

            What the crap??? you were moderated as Funny too !!! Now it's time for JonKatz to post to this thread, he could get some mod points for himself !!!
          • Perhaps an additional mod of "Ironic" would be beneficial here.

            Ah, but then, +1 or -1?

            (aha! no! 0 - then it could be recursively ironic!)

      • Re:Incredible Insight! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Citizen of Earth ( 569446 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @04:55PM (#3873419)
        They agreed to release the patent to OpenGL, so can they sell it to somebody who is going to "un-release" it?

        I would presume that this cannot be legal, since if it were, we would have a different RAMBUS-type fiasco every day of the week. Every company would agree to give free access to their patents that are used in an open standard, and immediately after the standard is deployed, they would sell their patent to a 'collection agency' and tell all of the suckers who implemented the open spec to pay up.

        Maybe I should patent this business model right away...

  • The case for OpenGL (Score:4, Interesting)

    by stevenbee ( 227371 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @03:30PM (#3872810)
    From the article:

    OpenGL owes its current success to an unrestrictive licensing system, which allows developers to write to the API without a licence, and which carries no royalty fees.

    I think they were a little remiss in overlooking the technological case for OpenGL; the fact is that many developers prefer it to DirectX, and not for ideological reasons.

    • OpenGL only solves one problem, and that is the Graphics.

      DirectX provides an API all aspects of deployment and operations. You get Sound, Video, Graphics, Networking, Device integration (Joysticks/Mice/Yokes...) and more.

      DirectX has a plethora of COMMERCIAL support and addons to make producing software easier, cheaper and quicker.

      I have yet to see a developer who likes one over the other since they both can be a royal pain to develop with.. Atleast with DirectX microsoft has a vast library of resources, demos, and code to throw at you.

    • Re:The case for OpenGL (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ewhac ( 5844 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @05:05PM (#3873516) Homepage Journal

      the fact is that many developers prefer it to DirectX, and not for ideological reasons.

      Unfortunately, this is not as true as we might wish it to be. Micros~1, as usual, has stacked the deck in its favor.

      If you're a graphics card manufacturer, you want to make sure that your drivers will do the right thing. Thus, you need to test the hell out of it. Surprise, surprise, Micros~1 has a little thing called WHQL (Windoze Hardware Quality Labs) which exhaustively tests your hardware and drivers to make certain they behave properly. If you pass, you get a little WHQL sticker to put on your box. Thus, the graphics OEM can save the expense of creating its own verification department.

      What do you have to do to earn WHQL certification? Well, that changes over time as Windoze acquires more cruft^H^H^H^H^Hfeatures. But one thing you must do is fully complete their DirectX validation suite. If you fail, you don't get the sticker.

      So who does OpenGL validation? Well, Micros~1 will do that for you, too. But it's optional, not required. Moreover, they won't perform OpenGL testing unless and until you've already passed DirectX testing. So, if you're a graphics OEM living on razor-thin margins, you're not going to spend one engineering dollar more than is absolutely necessary to get that WHQL sticker, and to heck with everything else. So OpenGL gets short shrift.

      So why did OpenGL get anywhere at all? Two words: John Carmack. Carmack and id Software are the de facto certification authority for OpenGL: "If Quake runs, it works." Trouble is, earlier versions of Quake only used a subset of the full OpenGL API, so card makers only supported exactly that. As Carmack exercised more of the API in new releases of Quake, card vendors slowly got the idea that supporting the complete API was probably a wise move. NVidia got the hint way early, and it didn't hurt that they had a bunch of ex-SGI engineers on staff.

      But even so, OpenGL support remains spotty and uneven, because there is no comprehensive certification authority (that wields any political clout) for OpenGL. If your DirectX implementation is broken, Micros~1 will tell you exactly what you messed up. There is, to my knowledge, no such facility in place for testing OpenGL. Thus, OpenGL implementations are broken in different ways across different cards. DirectX is fundamentally broken, but because of WHQL testing, it's broken the same way across all cards. Because of this comparative uniformity across cards, game developers just go straight to DirectX, and maybe will write an OpenGL rendering layer as an afterthought, despite the fact that OpenGL is easier to write for, and can often be seen offering higher performance. id Software was the sole exception to this rule, offering OpenGL support only. It looked like CroTeam [croteam.com], creators of Serious Sam [croteam.com], were going to boost OpenGL's mindshare, but they have since caved in, and their latest Serious Sam release features DirectX support.

      Now, Micros~1 has acquired the lever it needs to kill OpenGL. Vertex shaders are the Next Big Thing in hardware-assisted rendering, and they have been under development for some time. It was hacked into DirectX as of DX8 (IIRC), but the OpenGL ARB has been trying to come up with an equivalent solution that is cross-platform and network-transparent. (Hence the perception that OpenGL is "lagging" DirectX.) Even if the ARB makes vertex shaders an optional extension, it will effectively kill OpenGL's already-tenuous popularity as a rendering API, because developers won't be able to rely on vertex shading extensions being installed. Thus, if you're a game developer, and you want vertex shading in your game, then you'll use DirectX and nothing else.

      This is Micros~1's idea of, "Competing on the merits."

      Schwab

      • SGI used to do some OpenGL qualifications tests for hardware - if I recall correctly.

  • Read this too (Score:3, Informative)

    by Gusano ( 166423 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @03:35PM (#3872853)
    You might want to read this [theregister.co.uk] too.

    It even mentions MS could put MESA in trouble just by writind a C&D to them.

    Nice world isn't it?

  • pretty shady claims (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MORTAR_COMBAT! ( 589963 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @03:35PM (#3872858)
    well, the article states that probably the IP referred to was actually created by SGI, and put into the OpenGL standards with the promise of releasing the IP with the standard, i.e., royalty free. Microsoft comes along, buys a bunch of SGI IP (including this vertex stuff), and looks through it and goes, "hrm, now we can crush the OpenGL specification... should we do it?"

    of course they will. graphics cards will end up being Direct3D -ONLY-. no OpenGL acceleration. that kills a ton of XFree86 work, that kills a lot of the Linux gaming work.

    hell, that might kill Linux.

    • Re:pretty shady claims (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Enry ( 630 )
      hell, that might kill Linux.

      It might kill Linux on the Desktop, but certainly not the server, where Linux has a clear advantage over MS on the 'net.

      • It might kill Linux on the Desktop, but certainly not the server, where Linux has a clear advantage over MS on the 'net.

        Kill it on the desktop, and you come a step closer to killing it in the server market. Less people with experience in Linux leads to more unfortunate uninformed MS server choices. It's not like this is M$'s only attack on Linux, they clearly understand the concept of death by 1000 cuts.

    • > that kills a ton of XFree86 work

      Amn't qualified to comment on *how* much X work, but anything that encourages development of alternatives to X is a good thing IMO. Linux _needs_ stuff like directfb etc to catch on if it has to make headway with the Joe User.
      • Lets say you got the budget and the people to create the next-ubber-cool competitor to XFree..

        When you'll do the 3D work, you'll need Vertex stuff, which is -> you guessed it, now owned by MS, thanks to SGI's stupidity.

        So your very cool XFree killer can either have 3D without vertex stuff, or can be with vertex, but you'll need to charge your end-users to pay for MS licenses..

        How many Linux users do you know that will actually pull their wallet and pay for this? maybe some graphics studios, but not others..
    • and looks through it and goes, "hrm, now we can crush the OpenGL specification... should we do it?"

      I can buy the "hrm, now we can crush the OpenGL specification" part, but I seriously doublt that Microsoft would ever ask "should we do it?".
    • hell, that might kill Linux.

      Dont underestimate the power of OS. If (and only if) OpenGL acceleration is to dissapear from cards I can bet that within a year we will have Direct3D acceleration in linux. Be it legal or not, that's another matter, but we will have it, along with YAML*.

      * Yet Another Microsoft Lawsuit

  • Microsoft part in it (Score:3, Interesting)

    by scott1853 ( 194884 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @03:36PM (#3872871)
    Was the OpenGL spec (or whatever MS is claiming part of) a cleanroom implementation or did MS recommend it as part of OpenGL? Are their provisions for clean-room implementation?
    • No. Patents cannot be bypassed by a clean room implementation.

  • Trying not to bash Microsoft... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MarvinMouse ( 323641 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @03:38PM (#3872888) Homepage Journal
    But don't they just make it way to easy lately.

    Like, I don't mind other companies that have tons of products and are making tons of money. Plus, they may have a somewhat stranglehold on industries. But I would have to say the only reason I dislike Microsoft is their apparent philosophy of don't produce good products, kill the competition, and use lawyers as much as possible to help both of the above.

    If MS produced quality products, I wouldn't care much about their attempts at complete world domination. But, since they don't produce quality products because they don't have to with the monopoly they have. (Remember Bill Gate's quote from some book I read recently which said (approximately), "You don't want them to want your product, you want them to think they cannot survive without your product. Then you win." Or in rough translation, "Don't worry about creating good products, just manuever yourself into a position where they have no choice but to use your products."

    Seems about right for MS lately. (Again, I really am not trying to bash Microsoft, just frustrated with what they have been doing.)
    • >use lawyers as much as possible

      When has Microsoft done this?

      Microsoft has a ton of software patents and whatnot that they could be using to go after competitors but I was under the impression that generally, they don't do this. Since you're saying they "use lawyers as much as possible" can you give me a few examples?

      - Steve
    • I don't know if we are talking about the same company, but Microsoft has produced many amazing games.

      Flight Sim 98, 2000, 2002, Combat Flight Sim 1, Combat Flight Sim 2, Links, MechWarrior, MotoCross Madness... not to mention all there Xbox games that kick ass.

      I'm sorry, but Windows 2000 runs just fine, Windows XP runs just fine, Office 2000 is a great suite, Microsoft Money is a life saver, and i can go on and on.

      Just because YOU don't like there product, doesn't mean you can speak for the millions that DO like there games.

      Flight Sim 2002 alone is worth every damn penny, and without microsoft a game that advanced wouldn't be available for the 39.00 you can purchase it at. Good simulation programs can run upwards of 200 bucks, and have alot less features!
      • ...you're in trouble.

        Because I use Office 2000 every day, and it's not even remotely a good product. It's a feature landfill. It's terminally buggy. The documents spontaneously corrupt themselves in MANY ways. And it still has well-known bugs in it from Word for Windows 2.0, not to mention misfeatures like fast save and Master Document which NEVER worked in the first place.

        It's not even as good a product as Office 95 was.

        Jon Acheson
        • Must be your PC. Runs great for me. I have probably 5,000 pages of documentation for all the applications, servers, networks and systems that i run. (all saved in HTML as well.. but html is a pain in the arse to edit in this much quantity)

          I couldn't possibly do it in any other product as easily and affordable as i can in office 2000. Powerpoint fits in nicely, my visio drawings are where i want them and formating is easy.

          I have yet to find an office suit as STABLE as Office 2k.

          I never liked 95 since it doesn't have the document integration that i need.
      • I don't know if we are talking about the same company, but Microsoft has produced many amazing games.

        Flight Sim 98, 2000, 2002, Combat Flight Sim 1, Combat Flight Sim 2, Links, MechWarrior, MotoCross Madness... not to mention all there Xbox games that kick ass.
        Not a single one of those games were developed in-house by Microsoft. In some cases MS acquired the original developer, and the rest are developed elsewhere and published by MS.
        I'm sorry, but Windows 2000 runs just fine, Windows XP runs just fine, Office 2000 is a great suite, Microsoft Money is a life saver, and i can go on and on.
        Running just fine is really personal preference. I actually liked Office 97; 2000 has nothing added that I want. Unfortunately, we were forced to upgrade at work because Office 97 refuses to work properly in a multi-user Win2k environment. I absolutely loathe their forced upgrades!

        By the way, none of the components of Office (and IE) were originally developed by MS. They were acquired or licensed from others.
        Flight Sim 2002 alone is worth every damn penny, and without microsoft a game that advanced wouldn't be available for the 39.00 you can purchase it at. Good simulation programs can run upwards of 200 bucks, and have alot less features!
        It might seem like a good value, but only because game prices are so inflated to begin with.

        Besides, there are flight sims available (with source code) for free (beer & speech senses) like FlightGear [flightgear.org]. Or there are much more advanced flight sims available for under $100 like X-Plane [x-plane.com].
      • You're talking about GAMES, while OpenGL has been mostly used in development 3D Applications (OK, some games like Quake uses OpenGL).

        The big problem here, is once SGI foolishly sold those patents to Microsoft (instead of NVidia for example), They effectivly allowd MS to stretch the OpenGL ARB for royalties and effectivly kill OpenGL (forget free OpenGL if you need to pay per copy for MS patents).
      • I don't know if we are talking about the same company, but Microsoft has produced many amazing games.

        And the dealers on our local main street sell excellent crack.

        And the transvestites outside the local dive hotel give excellent reach-arounds.

    • If MS produced quality products, I wouldn't care much about their attempts at complete world domination.

      People who make arguments like that ignore the fourth dimension.

  • Then it's time to strike back. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rahga ( 13479 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @03:40PM (#3872901) Journal
    I would love to see SGI, Nvidia, ATi, and other leading graphics companys to step it up. You can not tell me that Microsoft hasn't borrowed heavily from patented concepts and ideas that were first implemented by some of these companies. I bet it would be extremely easy for a few lawyers and engineers to get together and build up a solid case that Microsoft did not pay to implement technologies patented by these groups.... The concept of Microsoft INNOVATING any of the concepts embodied in DirectX is absolutely ridiculous.

    • With 6 million xboxen built, it should be Nvidia thanking microsoft.

      I don't see Sony buying up OpenGL to use it as a standard either... atleast if they do, they don't publish it and make it widely known.
      • I don't think that nVidia should feel that MS owes them anything, since if the tables were flipped, MS would stab them in the back. Or at least I speculate that MS would, but only based on prior actions on their behalf.

        I hope that MS subsides the next X-Box as much as they are this one. That would be cool ;)
    • Didn't Rick Belluzo settle all this when he was President of SGI? Just before he went to work for Microsoft, of course.
    • I would love to see SGI, Nvidia, ATI, and other leading graphics companys to step it up ...

      Why would they? It is not their role in life to support Linux and other GPL'd software. As a matter of fact it would simplify NVIDIA's and ATI's life if they didn't have to support Linux.

      Keep in mind that the "fair" licensing terms will probably be very fair to NVIDIA, ATI, and other commercial outfits. The only group likely to be screwed are the GPL based folks, MS is likely to have an "anti-viral" clause in their IP license that will be incompatible with GPL.
    • I would love to see SGI, Nvidia, ATi, and other leading graphics companys to step it up. You can not tell me that Microsoft hasn't borrowed heavily from patented concepts and ideas that were first implemented by some of these companies.

      Well, my take on it is:

      1. Microsoft BOUGHT a lot of those patents from those companies.
      2. The companies would NOT have sold them if they were cutting their own throats
      3. A number of proprietary technology companies have concerns about OSS/FS devaluing their companies
      So my guess is that:
      1. Their agreements forbid Microsoft to use the sold patents against the companies
      2. The companies sold the patents with a wink and a nod to MS for the purpose (in part) of hurting OSS/FS.
      In other words, part of the value the previous patent holders get out of the deal is that they can hide behind MS while it does the dirty work - which is, after all, Microsoft's most finely crafted product.

  • Swap Shop (Score:3, Funny)

    by Roger W Moore ( 538166 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @03:40PM (#3872904) Journal
    Actually I was interested to read that MS might be willing to swap IP licenses for OpenGL allowing them to get into the OpenGL market place without the usual expensive startup costs.

    Prehaps this could indicate that they are interested in getting involved with OpenGL and not just shut it down.
    • Somehow whenever I hear "Microsoft" and "getting involved with" something in the same sentence, I get real nervous. Maybe its the whole embrace and hijack^h^h^h^h^h^hextend thing, but it seriously bothers me.

      The worst part of a scenario where they use IP they acquired to weasel more IP out of the project is that presently they own everything and block people who don't slave for them from using it.

      I realize Microsoft is in business to make money, but I have a hard time with the way they seem to make it by throwing their weight around and extorting money from other people. It's the old 800lb gorilla analogy.

    • Prehaps this could indicate that they are interested in getting involved with OpenGL and not just shut it down

      Rather I suspect they would take all the IP licenses for OpenGL and incorporate them into DirectX. Then they would tell developers why use OpenGL when you get everything and more with DirectX? They than virtually eliminate OpenGL on windows (expect for John Carmack :) and marginalize the market so nothing worthwhile comes out for Mac or Linux. Personally I see 1:1 as them being able to use 2 technologies about equilalent to the ones they found the rights too. Not as them taking every bit of IP associated with the product.


      without the usual expensive startup costs.
      Oh do you mean the 62 million [theregister.co.uk] they paid to SGI for a bunch of 3D graphics patents? I think we're at the point where we KNOW M$ is in this for blood. How many times do we have to watch M$ use whatever unsavory /illegal tactics they want to achieve their ends before we realize that if there is something they can do to squeeze even the smallest advantage or profit out of a situation they WILL do it. We need to realize morals and ethics just don't make enough money for corporations and only PR comes into play ther, and M$ is at the point where it is their playground and no matter how rough they play no one has the power to make them feel any concequences. I basically see this situation as the fox tricking a hen into giving him her eggs than asking to be let in the hen house to give them back. Somebody please prove me wrong.

  • OpenGL's future (Score:5, Insightful)

    by maynard-lag ( 235813 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @03:41PM (#3872911)
    Since I first saw the stories about Microsoft and OpenGL recently, I've been wondering how this is going to play out. Microsoft's whole DirectX thing has largely been targeted/used by games, but what about the other markets that us OpenGL. My specific interest is in the 3-D CAD market. In this particular market, the software vendors and hardware vendors have been exclusively using OpenGL for a number of reasons:

    1) Multiple platform support, (most CAD systems run on unix or started on Unix)

    2) OpenGL existed long before DirectX

    I'm sure there's other reasons, but I wonder if the CAD vendors and other vendors are going to consider DirectX in the future, especially with so many vendors shifting more focus towrads Windows in the last couple of years. What about other markets that use OpenGL extensively?
    • Great, now we can replace the "BSD is dying" thread with "OpenGL is dying." :)

    • Re:OpenGL's future (Score:3, Interesting)

      by pmz ( 462998 )
      ...I wonder if the CAD vendors and other vendors are going to consider DirectX in the future, especially with so many vendors shifting more focus towrads Windows in the last couple of years.

      I certainly hope not. UNIX is still a more suitable platform for intensive large-scale CAD, since CAD is one domain where the software can take advantage of everything UNIX and high-end workstations have to offer. For example: multiple high-end framebuffers, large memory space, big CPU caches, multiple CPUs, high system bandwidth, and linear scalability in the operating system.

      I've used Pro/E on both Sun workstations and on decent PCs, and the PCs just leave something to be desired. On the Suns, the image quality is better, Solaris is more consistent and better-behaved, and the whole package just seems to take the abuse better. And, considering the licensing costs of Pro/E, the extra cost for a good Sun workstation really isn't that bad.

      To be honest, I feel that Windows and PCs have cheapened the high-end CAD industry in more ways than just up-front cost. Some good analogies: Replacing a Sun workstation with a Windows PC is somewhat like replacing a BMW M3 with a modded Chevy Cavalier or like replacing a genuine Swiss Army Knife with a cheap Chinese knock-off. Sure the Cavalier will probably get you from point A to point B, but it handles poorly and just feels cheap no matter how much horsepower you think it has. Sure the cheap knife has the same tools, but they break and wear out in no time. Is a PC with Windows supposed to be how we reward our hard-working professionals?
    • 1) Multiple platform support, (most CAD systems run on unix or started on Unix)
      Like AutoCAD? It used to be available on Unix, but now Autodesk is completely in bed with Microsoft.

  • Circumventing Patents (Score:2, Insightful)

    by teetam ( 584150 )
    Software patents tend to very specific. Is there no one in the open source graphics community who can discard the MS algorithms and specifically replace them with patent-free algorithms that are atleast nearly as good?

    I remember when Amazon came up with its single-click patent and tried to stop BN from doing the same, BN just added a confirmation page and called it a "two-click" checkout!

    Is it not possible to circumvent MS patents like that? I am not saying that these algorithms have the same trivial complexity, but the generally speaking, this should be possible.

  • I don't hack graphics code, but I've used graphics programs enough to know that there are usually a number of ways to get to a particular end result with an image. If Microsoft IP were dropped from OpenGL, are there other functions that would produce equivalent output, or are the patents so broad as to cover what the output even looks like, not just the methods used to get to that look?
    ___
    • Yes. I do stuff with OpenGL frequently, and there are ways around almost anything. This would just make it annoying, and piss off a lot of people.

      The worst part is that companies like Sony and Nintendo use a lot of OpenGL too. They are not exactly light-weights, and I'm sure they would simply create custom APIs. . .

      Of course, that would certaintly hurt the xbox. I can just imagine the whining that would result if Sony and/or Nintendo decided to use secret "really neat" custom APIs. MS would then have to compete feature for feature with black-box code, in an area where they have very little experience. MS would have to Optimize the code, or throw amazing amounts of hardware (compared to the competition), and still have to sell at the same price.

      -WS

    • I don't think that they've actually made it clear exactly how much they intend to claim is covered. If they have, then I haven't noticed it.

      It seems pretty clear that the 2D work isn't covered. And I'm sure that they will claim that the patent covers a lot more than anyone else would consider reasonable. So far the references seem to refer to "vertex shading", but to me, at least, that's a bit ambiguous.
  • Here is Microsoft's plan (as I see it):
    1. Get computers to the point where 3D is a possiblity - Done
    2. Get computers to the point where 3D is common - Done
    3. Notice a competitor/3rd party owns the dominant 3D standard - Done
    4. Develop your own standard (Direct3D maybe?) - Done
    5. Refine it to the point where it's actually useable - Done
    6. Help make many of the important features of modern 3D and get it in competitor/3rd party's standard - Done
    7. Point out that you have patents/etc on those parts of the standard and that you will charge large licensing fees on using that standard - In Progress
    8. Use fee to strangle the competing standard - To Be Done
    9. Now everyone is forced to use your software for 3D if they don't want to pay tons of license fees - To Be Done
    10. Watch as competing platforms (let's call them Fruit Computers, and Penguindynamics) die under licensing fees becase you refuse to put your royalty-free API on their platforms - To Be Done
    11. Have a good maniacle laugh - To Be Done
    See how simple that was?

    • Re:How to Take Over the 3D Industry in a Ten Steps (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ryants ( 310088 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @04:10PM (#3873113)
      # Develop your own standard (Direct3D maybe?) - Done
      Except MS didn't develop the original DirectX API. It was developed by a company called RenderMorphics (and it was called something like Reality Lab 3D) and Microsoft just bought it.

      This, apparently, is "innovation".

    • Sorry, your list was VERY good, however I have to make a few small adjustments to the end of it since I believe you missed one key point. My changes are in bold towards the end.

      1. Get computers to the point where 3D is a possiblity - Done
      2. Get computers to the point where 3D is common - Done
      3. Notice a competitor/3rd party owns the dominant 3D standard - Done
      4. Develop your own standard (Direct3D maybe?) - Done
      5. Refine it to the point where it's actually useable - Done
      6. Help make many of the important features of modern 3D and get it in competitor/3rd party's standard - Done
      7. Point out that you have patents/etc on those parts of the standard and that you will charge large licensing fees on using that standard - In Progress
      8. Use fee to strangle the competing standard - To Be Done
      9. Now everyone is forced to use your software for 3D if they don't want to pay tons of license fees - To Be Done
      10. Watch as competing platforms (let's call them Fruit Computers, and Penguindynamics) die under licensing fees becase you refuse to put your royalty-free API on their platforms - To Be Done
      11. Begin charging fees to your current customers (since they no longer have a choice) - To Be Done
      12. Laugh maniacally all the way to the bank (again) - The Ultimate Goal
      See how simple that was?
    • # Watch as competing platforms (let's call them Fruit Computers, and Penguindynamics) die under licensing fees becase you refuse to put your royalty-free API on their platforms - To Be Done

      This would work, if Linux was owned by anybody. But it isn't, and Linux users don't have much of a history of listening to lawyers where IP law is concerned. The vast majority of drivers for Linux have been reverse engineered. WineX is a complete implementation of the Windows APIs, and DirectX including Direct3D. DVD encryption was cracked largely by Linux users who wanted it available on their platform. An early version of Sorensen has already been cracked, and I'm sure it won't be long before the latest version is too.

      If OpenGL dies, that'd really suck, as MS would be left in control of the 3D graphics API. However, there would still be implementations for Linux - maybe not as good, but there's not much that can be done about this.

      You know, this story reminds me of another on /. a while ago - open hardware. Some guys were designing a video card and releasing the designs under an open source type license so anybody could manufacture it. I wonder - if OpenGL was killed as an official standard, would it be possible for a new API to be created, relying on cheap no-name manufacturers to cash in on the (growing) market of non-MS machines? With no IP royalties to pay, I can imagine you'd get a good price edge over other cards.

  • Their claims are probably invalid (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dh003i ( 203189 ) <dh003i@gmail. c o m> on Friday July 12, 2002 @04:00PM (#3873037) Homepage Journal
    The most likely scenario here is that they bought IP from SGI which SGI had given to the OpenGL project under a public/OSS/FS license. Thus, MS' claims are invalid. You can't put something into the public domain and then take it back. Sorry, that's just not permitted. Once something's in the public domain, its there forever.
    • I wonder, how many non-MS patents cover technologies within DirectX? I'm sure MS has got to be pretty careful exercising their patents, patents are kinda like nukes: they're nice to have in an emergency, but you really don't want to use them if you can avoid it, 'cos the other guy's probably got a bunch, too.

  • This seems like a good case to (re)raise the legal challenge to the patenting of software algorithms. Especially since there are a large number of recentent cases that assert that software is speech. It is the Constitutional duty of copyright, not patents to protect speech.

    A 3-D graphics algorithm is pretty close to the kind of pure mathematics that the Supreme Court has already said can't be patented.

  • MS has pure Hatred towards OpenGL (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ShwAsasin ( 120187 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @04:12PM (#3873120) Journal
    It's obvious that Microsoft hates/fears OpenGL. Since the beginning release of 1.1 for Win95, Microsoft has done nothing about releasing the stub/dll source-code, updating the source-code, or even trying to progress the development of OpenGL.

    Time and time again they have attempted to copy and improve upon OpenGL, first with Fahrenheit/XSG, then with DirectX. Yet, through all the technology and resources Microsoft puts in, the masses still like OpenGL.

    The principals of OpenGL are the same as the day it started with IrixGL. Keeping it simple, functional, and cross-platform. Although Microsoft has gone great strides with DirectX API, they have nowhere near the simplicity of OpenGL. And with the Alternative OS's supporting OpenGL (Mac OSX, Linux, FreeBSD, Solaris, Ps2Linux, etc...) there are more emerging platforms which they cannot touch.

    Game/Multimedia Developers are starting to realize that Linux and other platforms are decent for games, and are developing software for them. No, Linux isn't going to take over the world tommorrow because it has OpenGL, but think of this: If a developer gives both the Linux Binary and the Windows Binary, wouldn't you be curious to compare speeds between the two? People would problably spend the extra $0-5 difference for a dual-os game starting the eventual craze. It only takes a few people/companies to start a revolution.

    Microsoft is trying to attack every angle of the industry to focussing our attention on their superior product, yet nothing screams superior when their is a true choice and competition in the market.

  • The key is this phrase - get used to it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 12, 2002 @04:18PM (#3873159)
    Microsoft hinted that it would prefer an alternative licensing arrangement. At this month's OpenGL meeting, Microsoft representative Dave Aronson suggested that "other bodies have licensing terms that are more effective in a corporate sense, and we should look at adopting some of those terms."
    This is something we'll begin to hear a lot - Microsoft will do license fees of $0.00 for many of their technologies, but restrict the platforms to non-open ones. The real target here is not OpenGL but rather Open Source. The lack of fee will give them the ability to say "look, we're giving it away" to deflect the attention away from the restrictions in the license.
    I'm sure they'll be "super excited" about the resulting "ecosystem".
    • It seems the "non-discriminatory" clauses would be an issue here. Saying "you can use it on anything that's not (insert favorite OpenSource licenses here)" is VERY discriminatory.

      MS has already been found guilty of anti-trust violations. The appeal wasn't on guilt, but on the penalty. An attack against OpenGL is just another case of them dealing in anti-competitive practices.

      • I belive (I can't belive that I type this, but here goes) that MS got their full rights to do what they're doing today...

        Anyone of the readers here (if he/she got the money) or any company who got the money - could have bought the patents from SGI and start demanding money from the OpenGL ARB.

        I belive (as I wrote here today) that it was SGI stupid move to sell those patents to MS (why not grant them a very limited license?) instead of selling it to a more OpenGL friendly company like NVidia...

        Thanks to SGI stupid move - we'll be screwed..

        THANKS SGI!
        • Interesting point. Yes, if in fact MS bought the IP from SGI, then they're exercising "their" rights - though the "intelect" isn't theirs. The point I see though is that if SGI originally released that property to the wild, the "right" of the new owner to recall said right is questionable. If it was originally released under some kind of Open Source source agreement, that agreement should still be valid.

          Second, their "just protecting 'their' property" can, and should, be seen as the anti-competitive ploy that it is. The ONLY thing they stand to gain from this action is to strengthen their monopoly - which has already been found illegal.

          The hardware/software community aren't the ones who need to step up here, it's the Justice Department who needs to enforce their own rulings.

  • What a great way to promote Direct X. Make the other possibility too expensive to license. And the DOJ thought M$ was a monopolly.

  • Wait a minute! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 3seas ( 184403 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @04:32PM (#3873230) Homepage Journal
    If this what a lawyer is telling us, then why can't he determine one way or the other what the bottom line is?
    Perhaps it's just FUD. Hasn't any Patent lawyer looked over the issue, outside of MS?

    And if MS bought some IP from SGI and this caused the problem, the where else can MS buy up IP and cause problems?

    Shouldn't such an issue be the focus....to remove such a possibility before MS makes things worse?
  • Com on guys, let just ask Microsoft politely to contribute to the Open Source community. I am sure they will understand. After all every major company contributes.

  • Ode to JonKatz, If Gates had a Gazillion Dollars (Score:5, Funny)

    by Yo Grark ( 465041 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @04:39PM (#3873296)
    If I Had A Gazillion Dollars,(If I Had A Gazillion Dollars)

    I'd build a fully automated house.(I'd build a fully automated house)

    If I Had A Gazillion Dollars(If I Had A Gazillion Dollars)
    I'd buy solid gold furniture for your house
    (Maybe a nice chair from IBM or an ottoman from Oracle)

    If I Had A Gazillion Dollars(If I Had A Gazillion Dollars)
    I'd buy a SUV Stretched limo with GPS and an onboard WAV Music Box
    (a nice crash free automobile not running CE)
    If I Had A Gazillion Dollars I'd buy your Soul.

    If I Had A Gazillion Dollars
    I'd build a tree fort the size of Vermont
    If I Had A Gazillion Dollars
    You could help, just keep buying into our forced license upgrades

    If I Had A Gazillion Dollars
    Maybe we could put a free support call or two in there
    Wouldn't that be fabulous

    If I Had A Gazillion Dollars(If I Had A Gazillion Dollars)
    I'd buy a patent or two (but not a legal patent you fool)

    If I Had A Gazillion Dollars(If I Had A Gazillion Dollars)
    I'd buy an exotic petting zoo (to cage penguins and lizzards)

    If I Had A Gazillion Dollars(If I Had A Gazillion Dollars)
    I'd buy John Merrick's remains off of Mike (All them crazy elephant bones)
    If I Had A Gazillion Dollars I'd buy your soul.

    If I Had A Gazillion Dollars
    We wouldn't have to walk to the store
    If I Had A Gazillion Dollars
    We'd take a limousine 'cause it costs more.
    If I Had A Gazillion Dollars
    We wouldn't have to use Windows XP
    But we would. We'd actually make the entire planet upgrade to it and pay us through the nose...what are they going to do? Go to Linux?

    If I Had A Gazillion Dollars (If I Had A Gazillion Dollars)
    I'd buy Secuity code and make a mess (a legal mess, but we'd sue the original company)

    If I Had A Gazillion Dollars (If I Had A Gazillion Dollars)
    I'd buy electronic arts (maybe nintendo, maybe just make our own gaming platform)

    If I Had A Gazillion Dollars,If I Had A Gazillion Dollars
    I'd buy an IP from SGI
    (Haven't you always wanted to be charged for Open Source?)

    If I Had A Gazillion Dollars, If I Had A Gazillion Dollars,If I Had A Gazillion Dollars, If I Had A Gazillion Dollars

    I'd still be a corporate prick.

    -YG-

  • The version of OpenGL that is released and used today is a free standard in the public domain. If I write code that uses OpenGL (and I actually do that), but don't use stuff like vertex programming, could I not just release it to an earlier version of OpenGL?

    If you choose to install libraries on your computer with a newer version, and it is backward compatible so it would run my code, then it would be fine, right?

    Now if everyone who would like to port code for several platforms would slowly ignore the M$ only version, making it a dead standard.

    See the point?

  • OpenGL is very vulnerable to stuff like this... (Score:5, Informative)

    by kabir ( 35200 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @04:44PM (#3873345)
    ... and it doesn't take MS to cause problems. The general consensus amongst developers who use the more advanced OGL features (pixel and fragment shaders/programs, etc.) is that things are currently a mess.

    OpenGL is comprised of a central body of standard functionality which _must_ be implemented in order to use the name OpenGL. Additionally there's an extension mechanim which allows IHVs (like NVidia, ATI, etc.) to implement their own funcitonality which isn't currently a part of the core standard. That's how we have Fragment/Pixel shaders/programs today, as IHV extensions from NVidia and ATI. This system tends to work pretty well, but you start to get into problems with the interface. Essentially what happens is that all the IHVs decide that they need to do something along the lines of vertex programs (a way to manipulated verticies after they have been passed to the GPU, more or less), which is true. It's a cool feature any everyone likes it. Since they're being implemented as IHV extensions they're not standardized at all, so if you want to use a vertex program from NVidia you have to use their vertex program assembly language, but if you want to accomplish the same thing on an ATI card you have to use _their_ vertex program assembly (which, by the by, tends to follow a completely different model than NVidia), ad naseum.

    Naturally all of this is a pain in the ass for developers. You now not only have to have different rendering paths for the various combinations of available extensions, but you have to write the same routines in drastically different languages to support a given set of functions.

    Now getting all of this into a standard extension to the core API is supposed to solve some of these problems, but the IHVs aren't totally in favour of that as they then lose some product differentiation/control/etc. Mind you, this bit is speculation and observation, I don't actually know what the IHVs are thinking, but history shows that they sometimes have trouble working together ;) In any case, there's been a lot of stalling over this issue due to that sort of crap as well.

    And it's exactly these kinds of disagreements that are holding up OpenGL 2.0, which is supposed to directly address many of these problems. NVidia, for instance, has CG, their high level shading language. CG can be compiled down to their proprietry shader code (for use with NV_* extensions on NVidia cards) and, _in theory_ down to the proprietary code for other cards. However, for that to actually work ATI, etc. need to create so called "profiles" which allow the CG compiler to do it's thing. Clearly NVidia wants some degree of control/name recognition/whatever here... in the case where CG takes off you'd need to get your dev tools from NVidea regardless of which cards you're targeting. Now this idea is in direction competition with the OpenGL 2.0 proposal, which gives much of the same functionality but via a standard set of interfaces that replace current IHV proprietary code rather than a compiler ship on the top. Natrually this makes NVidia a little less enthusiastic about OpenGL 2.0 in it's current (proposed) form.

    And on, and on, and on.

    Right about now DX 9 (really the D3D componant...) is starting to look pretty damn good to a lot of us. It's got standard interfaces for pixel shading, etc. that just work with the various cards, it's a much improved API from it's early days, and given all the extension thrash it's much easier to write clean, readable code under D3D than OpenGL anymore.

    Of course you're screwed if you need to port, but that's the plan, right?

    The point of all this is simply that while MS is certainly doing their part to muck about with OpenGL (like not updating the damn dev tools since OpenGL 1.1!!!) they're not alone in that hobby. IHV squabbles have always been an issue in that area, and MS' best tactic to date has been to take advantage of the slowness of the ARB (often arising from IHV squabbling) and run right on by with their own API. So their adding to the infighting isn't really that much of a change to the situation, as I see it.

  • > An IP lawyer says that Microsoft could make things difficult for OpenGL if they feel like it, basically.

    When you've got billions of dollars in the bank, you can make things difficult for anybody if you feel like it, basically.

  • they take the "open" out of "OpenGL" if Microsoft is going to be involved. With those kind of War Chests -- they could convince a jury that water was wine.
  • Not M$ in this case, but ZDNet. The attorney they quoted does not appear to have any special expertise in patent law -- he appears to be more into licensing. He also is not listed as a Registered Patent Attorney in the USPTO database.

    Essentially then, M$ stated at an OpenGL meeting that it has some patents related to graphics. The article says NOTHING about any application of those claims to OpenGL technology in use, the validity of the patents, or any other of a host of issues.

    The article slants slightly toward the view that M$ can make things really problematic if it wants but that simply may not be true. As far as I am concerned, in my opinion as a registered patent attorney, there is no story here unless and until M$ shows an issued patent and describes how the claim reads on OpenGL. Move along folks -- there's nothing to see here.

    • PS -- The attorney's comments appear to be reasonable, but are reasonable speculation based on the assumption that M$ has enforceable patents that actually cover OpenGL technology. ZDNet did a disservice by the way the quotes were used to give the impression that M$ was lurking out there setting the statge for a patent infringement suit if OpenGL users did not pony up fees.
  • I'm about tired of all this MS this and that. I say why bother honoring their patents. I don't no many people that would honor bad faith laws in any thing else. Just because it's law doesn't mean it's just.

    In Rome they used to round up and kill christians, but now look at how much authority the papalicy has there. Laws change when groups act and grow to the majority. Everyone that can should push to shut out groups that abuse patents. You can't invalidate contracts retroactively in the US I thought.

    British Telecom claims to own hyperlinking for example, and I don't know any person, government, or company giving in on that...

    If everyone not just ignores but protests the law/patent then it can be invalidated.

    -------------
    offtopic
    -------------

    Also remember MS doesn't have all the money they claim -- they use various Enron accounting techniques like wages paid in options, pro forma numbers, and cookie jarring to report false profits. I wouldn't expect the SEC to do anything to them since they're the biggest big cap, and it would hurt the larger markets.

    When you see someone saying 'MS has $XXB', please remind them that's not true. I'm willing to bet that they're actually operating at a loss. Look at how they're trying to con schools and companies with over charging... that's enough of that.
  • While some issues of patent law makes sense... the very fact that a company can sit on their hands for 10 years while waiting for a product to achieve worldwide appeal, THEN reveal that they own a patent on that product and pick up the market without doing any of the gruntwork to promote it, is just atrocious.

    Microsoft knows about OpenGL. They know what it does, they know what features it supports. If it takes them 10 years to figure out they have a patent which OpenGL infringes on, then that patent was probably a waste of money, since its pretty clearly not getting a whole lot of use, or someone would have noticed it before now. Unless, of course, they wanted to wait awhile first. Unfortunately, the law lets them do just that.

    I don't know about you, but if I paid $20,000 for a patent on something, and some company was going to town marketing an infringing product, you better believe I would be publically screaming about it, sending letters to cease and desist, filing motions in court. There would be none of this sitting around waiting crap. If I put forth the risk to secure the guarantee on the exclusive nature of my product, you can bet I wouldn't want another company stealing my thunder in that regard.

    Now, I don't buy into patents in that manner, especially when it comes to software. yes, I can patent my mousetrap, but if someone makes a better mousetrap, they have that right, free and clear, and I'm not guaranteed anything from there. You can't patent ideas. So you wrote a vertex shader. Good for you. Unless I'm copying your source code, its not a legal issue. And even if I am, its a copyright issue. The ability
    to patent algorithms is all but silly.

    However, as it stands, that's the way the law wants to work. Fine. But if you've patented some silly algorithm, you better not sit on your hands while someone else does a lot of hard work to develop it in parallel, promotes it, perhaps even patents it (a patent office that allows you to patent the wheel and swing motions cannot be
    trusted to catch duplicate patents), and sells it, only to step in later and tell them to hand it all over. There needs to be a time limit on making claims once knowledge of the product is discovered. Not knowledge of your own patents, you're already supposed to know about those. That's what legal departments are for. Wait longer than 6 months, you forfeit the right to claim infringement later.

    At least, that's how it should be.

    -Restil
    • the very fact that a company can sit on their hands for 10 years while waiting for a product to achieve worldwide appeal, THEN reveal that they own a patent on that product and pick up the market without doing any of the gruntwork to promote it, is just atrocious.
      Yes, it is atrocious. But I get the impression that's not what happened. The patent may be one of those that they purchased from SGI a few weeks ago.

      It may be the case that SGI has just fucked everyone, by licensing a patent for free for many years, letting it become part of a standard, and then irresponsibly selling it to someone that they knew would stop licensing it for free, in order to eliminate the standard.

      (Ohmygod, that was one sentence? I'm sorry.)

      It's not the classical "submarine patent" scenario, though it is similar.

      It's past time to really, really, get rid of predatory patent abuse, once and for all. I think we're going to need to hire Congress for this one, assuming they're willing to deal with walk-in customers instead of established clients.

  • Really!

    Intellectual property law in this country has gotten out of hand!

    The IRS is a private corporation, 60% owned by British interests!

    Taxation *with* representation sucks as bad as taxation *without* representation!

    (Don't blame me, I voted for Khodos Perot!)

    The UK seems to have avoided the patenting of software, and human genes... and it was your astute guidance that did it!

    Oh, King George, Where Are You now!!!

    Come Back To US, George!!!(*)

    -- Terry

    (*) Offer not valid in New Jersey or the District of Columbia; some restriction may apply. See your dealer for details.
  • Can anti-trust concepts be extended to patents?

    If a single company effectively controls an entire segment of a market by virtue of its patents, is that monopolist?

  • It proffered no meaningful analysis of the scope or nature of Microsoft's claims -- offered no insights drawn from 18 month publications, and took no account of obvious and likely strategies that could be taken to counter the "threat" of an abuse of IP ownership in these contexts.

    The time is long since past due that a community of open source developers and technicians need to develop a portfolio of technology patents to cross-license against such threats. If significant standards were so protected, even a Microsoft could not long resist the need to "quid pro quo" its blocking technologies, even if it had some.

  • listen now you will (Score:3, Insightful)

    by jafac ( 1449 ) on Friday July 12, 2002 @10:25PM (#3874936) Homepage
    Nobody believed "us" back in the day when MS first adopted Java. We all TOLD YOU SO! That Microsoft was going to embrace and extend the standard, and fuck it up so that it would not work properly on Windows.

    Oh no, you said. We were just a bunch of paranoid unix loving long haired hippies that needed a bath and got off on bashing Microsoft because they were the embodiment of "the man".

    Here it is, 2002. See where Java on WIndows is today.

    Back in the 80's we told you that NOBODY was going to be able to stop Microsoft. You told us in 1993 when the DOJ sued them for anticompetitive behavior that that was it for MS. They got the consent decree in 95, and wiped their asses with it and stuffed it in the judge's mouth. Then in 1998, when the DOJ came a knockin again, you said - that was IT, no more mister nice guy, they'll put a stop to that evil Microsoft, but we'll keep running Windows over here in our little corner, because it was "most compatible" "most convenient".

    Well, look. Here it is, 2002, no sign of a settlement with any degree of teeth - Microsoft has it's fingers in nearly every aspect of computing, and has extended into entertainment, banking, even fucking HISTORY for christ's sake (buying DaVincci's stuff and locking it down). And there you people go, still saying Windows is great, Office is a great app, etc. Well, thanks. You've sold us all into slavery.

    You'll now say - don't worry, they won't close off OpenGL (hm - I wonder if they think if all that money they spent on marketing XBox was effective. OF COURSE NOT! Not until they kill of OpenGL). You say, they won't close off identity and privacy (.NET, Palladium).

    Dude, we're living in a totally fucked up world.

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close