A Lawyer's View on the OpenGL Patent Mess 344
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. "
Incredible Insight! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Incredible Insight! (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
Re:Incredible Insight! (Score:3, 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!
Re:Incredible Insight! (Score:2, 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 !!!
Re:Incredible Insight! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Incredible Insight! (Score:2, Funny)
Ah, but then, +1 or -1?
(aha! no! 0 - then it could be recursively ironic!)
Re:Incredible Insight! (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:Incredible Insight! (Score:2, Interesting)
It depends on exactly what rights company A sells company B.
For example, if company A sells non-exclusive rights to company B and then company A releases the patent to the public domain, well tough luck for company B.
On the other hand, if company A sells exclusive rights to company B, then there's no way company A can rerelease the patent to anyone.
#include IANAL.h
The case for OpenGL (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:The case for DirectX (Score:2)
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)
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
Re:The case for OpenGL (Score:2)
perhaps (Score:2)
Read this too (Score:3, Informative)
It even mentions MS could put MESA in trouble just by writind a C&D to them.
Nice world isn't it?
Re:Read this too (Score:3, Funny)
MESA OpenGL gonna die?
[/jarjar]
pretty shady claims (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
It might kill Linux on the Desktop, but certainly not the server, where Linux has a clear advantage over MS on the 'net.
death by 1000 cuts (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:pretty shady claims (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:pretty shady claims (Score:2)
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..
Re:pretty shady claims (Score:2)
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?".
Re:pretty shady claims (Score:2)
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)
Re:Microsoft part in it (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft part in it (Score:2)
It doesn't matter whether you use a clean room implementation or not. If you do what the patent describes, you must have a license from the patent holder.
A patent isn't a trade secret. Patents are supposed to be made obvious. A patent isn't a trademark. You don't need to defend it unless you want to. But it's also true that a patent cannot be invalidated without a court deciding that it is invalid. Prior art is one basis for that decision. A clean room implementation is not a basis for deciding that.
Caution: IANAL
Re:Microsoft part in it (Score:2, Informative)
Trying not to bash Microsoft... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.)
Re:Trying not to bash Microsoft... (Score:2)
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
Re:Trying not to bash Microsoft... (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but MS Produces EXCELLENT Games (Score:2)
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!
If Office 2000 is the best you can do... (Score:2)
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
Re:If Office 2000 is the best you can do... (Score:2)
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.
Re:I'm sorry, but MS Produces EXCELLENT Games (Score:2)
By the way, none of the components of Office (and IE) were originally developed by MS. They were acquired or licensed from others. 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].
Re:I'm sorry, but MS Produces EXCELLENT Games (Score:2)
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).
Re:I'm sorry, but MS Produces EXCELLENT Games (Score:2)
And the dealers on our local main street sell excellent crack.
And the transvestites outside the local dive hotel give excellent reach-arounds.
Re:I'm sorry, but MS Produces EXCELLENT Games (Score:2)
Okay.. there is an opinion.. a agree, i expressed mine as well
"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"
Now that is just the typical stuff i see here, day in and day out.. Share an opinion and then follow it up with an assumed fact.
I guess i'm not allowed to post my opinion and a simple fact either?
oh well
Re:Trying not to bash Microsoft... (Score:2)
People who make arguments like that ignore the fourth dimension.
Then it's time to strike back. (Score:5, Insightful)
After all, it is the xbox selling millions of GPUs (Score:2)
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.
Agreed but, (Score:2)
I hope that MS subsides the next X-Box as much as they are this one. That would be cool
Too Late (Score:2)
MS not a threat to SGI, NVIDIA, ATI, etc. Only GPL (Score:2)
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.
Re:Then it's time to strike back. (Score:2)
Well, my take on it is:
Swap Shop (Score:3, Funny)
Prehaps this could indicate that they are interested in getting involved with OpenGL and not just shut it down.
Re:Swap Shop (Score:2)
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.
Re:Swap Shop (Score:2)
Re:Swap Shop (Score:2)
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
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
OpenGL's future (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:OpenGL's future (Score:3, Funny)
Re:OpenGL's future (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Re:OpenGL's future (Score:2)
Circumventing Patents (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Are there other functions with equivalent effects? (Score:2)
___
Re:Are there other functions with equivalent effec (Score:2)
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
Re:Are there other functions with equivalent effec (Score:2)
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.
How to Take Over the 3D Industry in a Ten Steps (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:How to Take Over the 3D Industry in a Ten Steps (Score:5, Interesting)
This, apparently, is "innovation".
Re:How to Take Over the 3D Industry in a Ten Steps (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How to Take Over the 3D Industry in a Ten Steps (Score:2)
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)
Re:Their claims are probably invalid (Score:2)
Re:Their claims are probably invalid (Score:2)
I don't think you can do that (Score:2)
which they are allowed to do (Score:2)
Re:Their claims are probably invalid (Score:2)
Software Patents (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:MS has pure Hatred towards OpenGL (Score:2)
My experience with OpenGL on both Wind32 and X is that the Win32 initialization is actually slightly cleaner. X's big loss is that you have to decide you are going to use OpenGL before you even create the window (because of those damn visuals). MicroSoft's WGL big loss is that you cannot share OpenGL contexts between windows and you must destroy them when you destroy windows. MicroSoft's method of supporting overlays is better than the X one where they are a seperate window, in particular they provide a call that can swap both the overlay and main window together. I have seen lots of bugs in the NT version of OpenGL, however, such as lines and text not drawing in the foreground buffer.
Neither the X or Win32 system is "good" for any reasonable definition of the word "good". I should be able to draw using OpenGL into *any* window, at *any* time, by telling it to "draw into this window" with one call. I don't know who designs this stuff...
The key is this phrase - get used to it (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Re:The key is this phrase - get used to it (Score:2)
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.
Re:The key is this phrase - get used to it (Score:2)
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!
Re:The key is this phrase - get used to it (Score:2)
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.
Direct X (Score:2)
Wait a minute! (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
"where else can MS buy up IP and cause problems?" (Score:2)
I'll be damned if I'm going to identify all of their competitor's weak spots for them for free.
Nice try, though...
-- Terry
Talk to Microsoft (Score:2, Funny)
Ode to JonKatz, If Gates had a Gazillion Dollars (Score:5, Funny)
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-
Ignore the M$ OpenGL version. (Score:2)
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)
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
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.
But of course! (Score:2)
> 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.
I Vote (Score:2)
Why Do They DO These Things? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Why Do They DO These Things? (Score:2)
Well, watch me get flamed... (Score:2)
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.
Time limit on patent infringement claims. (Score:2)
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
Re:Time limit on patent infringement claims. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
King George, come back! All is forgiven! (Score:2)
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.
How is this not an anti-trust issue? (Score:2)
If a single company effectively controls an entire segment of a market by virtue of its patents, is that monopolist?
Article was fluff (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:Here we go again. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Here we go again. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Here we go again. (Score:2)
Re:New War for ACs to fight? (Score:3, Interesting)
Then a court will have to compell Microsoft not to alter the license. Microsoft will basically have to prove the license is invalid. Which would make the patents invalid (i think).
Re:Patent Rights (Score:3, Informative)
<rantmode>
I don't know if this has changed recently, BUT when I looked into Direct3D a while back I ran across a show stopper for what I was working on. If you use ANY double precision fp math in your code the FPU needs to be 'reset' every time it went into D3D code. This sent performance down the crapper. This basically makes it useless for scientific style applications.
</rantmode>
Re:Make a buck? (Score:2, Interesting)
Get a clue, it's not them trying to be successfull, it's them being everywhere, playing the king of the hill and pushing everyone else down. That game may have be fun as a kid, but when you talk about economy and consumers rights, it is not a game anymore.
Re:It seems as if . . . (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:DirectX as a response to OpenGL (Score:2)
Re:Not too surprising (Score:2)