Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?
Patents Graphics Media Open Source Your Rights Online

Tandberg Attempts To Patent Open Source Code 187

An anonymous reader writes "As if the current situation with software patents wasn't bad enough, it appears a new phenomenon is emerging: companies are watching the commit logs of open source projects for ideas to patent. In this case, Tandberg filed a patent that was step-by-step identical to an algorithm developed by the x264 project — a mere two months after the original commit. The particular algorithm is a useful performance optimization in a wide variety of video encoders, including Theora."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tandberg Attempts To Patent Open Source Code

Comments Filter:
  • First to Invent (Score:5, Informative)

    by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Friday November 26, 2010 @09:58AM (#34349560) Homepage Journal

    The open source project should file their own patent. Because patents in the U.S. are on a first-to-invent basis, and because they can clearly demonstrate having invented it first, their patent will effectively invalidate the other patent. Then sue the other company for violating the patent, win, and use this to fund many decades of x264 development.

    • Re:First to Invent (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 26, 2010 @10:02AM (#34349586)

      Sounds like a great idea. That will be $10,000 (about the bare minimum to file a patent and prosecute it through issuance).

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        If we could ensure that the patent would stay in the public domain I'd contribute $1K.

      • by Motard ( 1553251 )

        So sign your rights over to another patent troll. It wouldn't solve anything, but it would be fun. And free.

      • That includes attorney's fees, though. You can file a patent application as a small entity for $462 (if my math is correct), and you don't have to prosecute it through to allowance if you aren't interested in actual patent rights. Applications publish after 18 months automatically, and this puts them in the searchable database that examiners use most of the time to find prior art, making it a lot easier to find.

        There are some formal hoops that you have to jump through, though, to prevent abandonment befor

      • Re:First to Invent (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Elijah Lynn ( 1948242 ) <> on Friday November 26, 2010 @08:08PM (#34354278) Homepage

        Sounds like a great idea. That will be $10,000 (about the bare minimum to file a patent and prosecute it through issuance).

        Something that is much easier and much cheaper for open source projects/idea to do is to submit a Defensive Publication, I talked with Tom Tyson of the Open Invention Network ( a while ago and he explained the beauty of Defensive Publications. Basically the patent offices scour defensive publications prior to issuing a patent and if they find anything then the patent gets rejected. Therefore making it unable to patent by anyone else. These are easy to write up and their lawyers review them and submit them. I will be submitting many of my idea this way so nobody can claim patents on them, it is free. The website is []

    • by hitmark ( 640295 )

      patent MAD, "love" it...

    • Re:First to Invent (Score:5, Informative)

      by PseudonymousBraveguy ( 1857734 ) on Friday November 26, 2010 @10:10AM (#34349632)

      TThen sue the other company for violating the patent, win,

      This sounds good in theory, but I've come to the conclusion that it's not neccessary that only because you *shold* win you actually *do* win. If you are unlucky, the process will go like: File for a patent, sue, get your own patent invalidated, get sued by company, and go bankrupt.

      The most important step is therefor: Get a good lawyer first before trying anything else. I don't know if the EFF or similar foundations would sponsor a lawsuit, or if you'd find enough money by asking for donations, but without any backing the whole process sounds risky.

      If that whole legal thing is not your favorite cup of tea, you could give all evidence to PUBPAT or a similar organisation and let them fight the patent. They have more experience dealing with this stuff.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by knarf ( 34928 )

        The most important step is therefor: Get a good lawyer

        And thus the leeches feed again, and thus the cycle continues...

        The aim of the game should be to get the lawyers out of the software development process. I see why you give this advise to an individual but it does not help the community unless that lawyer is good enough to pull down the whole software patent house.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Compulawyer ( 318018 )
      Good idea. Unfortunately, the article says the code was released in 2008. In the US, you have one year after publication to file a patent application. After that year runs, no one can get a patent on whatever was disclosed.
      • by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        Ah. I didn't see that this was ancient history. Is this within a two month period after the patent was issued, or did they miss the window for public comment, too?

      • Re:First to Invent (Score:5, Insightful)

        by postbigbang ( 761081 ) on Friday November 26, 2010 @11:28AM (#34350216)

        Tandberg, a unit of Cisco, tries according TFA, to patent someone else's open source code; that someone else is the complainer in the link.

        Should he be unhappy? Yes. Is this person trying to patent open source code per se? No. Instead, it's this person's code. Should he sue? Probably. Should Tandberg be laughed off the planet? Certainly. Is the filing one year late? No, not by Tandberg's math. Does the prior art count? It would seem so. And the patent application ought to be denied for that reason-- prior art.

        • by dbIII ( 701233 )
          They should be facing criminal charges of outright fraud, which it probably is because they are pretending that they are responsible for developing it.
          That's probably the only way to stop such behaviour short of the obvious step of putting software under copyright protection alone instead of both copyright and patent protection.
          • So much of patents have turned out to be fraud, but there's hardly ever a prosecution, let alone a conviction. The way to stop it, actually, is to remove its overly immense monetization. Jail is one thing, cash another.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The authors should sue Tandberg for IP theft under the DMCA. I suspect they'd have a good case, since filing a patent is a claim of ownership. Since Tandberg could not possibly have ignored the prior art, they are thus making a fradulent claim of ownership. They could also file a complaint for abuse of judicial process. But they need to sue Tandberg's pants off, since Patent Trolls such as those operate only in the expectation that they will not be sued. They are targeting open source projects because they

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by arivanov ( 12034 )

      Who told you that Tandberg will use said patent after they have filed it.

      Most patents today are filed defensively, to ensure that you have ammo to sue back a non-troll in a patent war similar to the one currently going on in mobile.

      In fact, it is exceedingly rare for a non-troll company to actually license something for a fee from another company. If you try to do that, at the second meeting the lawyers of the company you are trying to license to open a FAT briefcase with their patent ammo and you are facin

      • by hkmwbz ( 531650 )

        Who told you that Tandberg will use said patent after they have filed it.

        Nice excuse for ripping off someone else's algorithm and claiming that you invented it...

    • Although your comment was modded up as 'Funny', I suspect that wasn't your intent.

      There's an important idea here; not the suing part, but the patenting part. The FOSS community should organize itself to patent EVERYTHING it does that's even remotely patentable. Everyone who wanted to use the software commercially would then have to sign a "For one dollar received and other valuable considerations" licensing agreement that, while effectively keeping the software free, would explicitly support the FOSS licenc

    • There's an even more robust option- members of the public can file requests with the PTO to review patents it has granted. If we can present a "preponderance of evidence" that the patent should not have been granted, it will be revoked. It's worth noting that 90% of such requests are successful.
    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      Because patents in the U.S. are on a first-to-invent basis

      The Wheel

      There doesn't appear to be anything filed on it to date. So I'm off to the patent office!

    • Tandberg was bought by Cisco for their video conferencing and telecommunications products, and sets the policy. So this is not done in any innocent way.
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Ghiora ( 1004216 )
      The open source person should file a complaint regarding theft of IP with the FBI and the state general attorney (if he lives in the US). There is nothing companies like less then dealing with government lawyers.
    • Welcome to the new age! That changed during the Bush Administration (Jr not Sr), to first to file. It was actually done for situations where two companies invented the same thing about the same time, but one company filed a patent first. Instead of going through a dispute of who actually invented it, the idea is that first to patent is first to invent.

      Guess what? Looks like their is a loophole in that one. As these patent trolls are not even inventing anything, but stealing other peoples ideas.


    • But won't that cause everything to turn even more horrible?

      If even open-source companies patent their stuff... then we're going to end up with a world, where the only way to solve this horrible mess of patents - is for even people who develop software for non-commercial purposes - to file them themselves?
  • More companies should do the same, patent everything until the whole thing collapses into a gigantic innovation blackhole.
  • by ciaran_o_riordan ( 662132 ) on Friday November 26, 2010 @10:04AM (#34349602) Homepage

    There was also a study (2004?) which showed that getting patents makes you more likely to be the target of patent litigation, and there's a guy in FFII who published a computer science paper only to find that someone else patented an extension of his work a few years later.

    The links and descriptions are at the below link, but it's down briefly for maintenance: []

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by pacinpm ( 631330 )

      [...]and there's a guy in FFII who published a computer science paper only to find that someone else patented an extension of his work a few years later.

      It's completely legal. He added some "value" so he can patent it. That's how patent system works. There is no prior art defence here.

      • by Kjella ( 173770 )

        Yup, and it's one of the ways big companies curb a potentially dangerous patent. They put a ton of patent lawyers on it and try patenting every reasonable extension or application. Though I suppose if it wasn't that way, you'd see overly broad patents claiming anything and everything deriving from it is also their patent.

  • by Compulawyer ( 318018 ) on Friday November 26, 2010 @10:09AM (#34349628)
    If you are alleging that Tandberg copied the idea from the x264 project, that is a very serious allegation. Title 35 of the US Code, Section 102(g) prohibits anyone from getting a patent on something that he (or she) did not themselves invent. It would also violate Rule 56 of the Rules of Practice of the USPTO which requires those involved with the preparation and prosecution of a patent application to disclose to the USPTO any reason known why a patent should not issue. Failure to do so is called "inequitable conduct" and is a basis for finding the patent permanently unenforceable. In some cases it can also be a federal crime.

    The US is not a first-to-file country but a first-to-invent country. That means that it is possible for an inventor to get a patent even thought they were not the first one to file an application at the USPTO but were the first to invent and were diligent in efforts to obtain a patent. Copying of this type is serious indeed. Theoretically, conduct of this type could also be a copyright infringement.

    I for one would like to see a *lot* more proof before reading about allegations like this. The mere fact that one event happened after another is far from sufficient. These are *very* serious accusations.

    • by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Friday November 26, 2010 @10:23AM (#34349740) Homepage

      You know how you ghouls are always "Consult a lawyer before doing anything!!!!ELEVEN!!!" ?

      If you read the patent claim and compare it to the published assembly, it's identical.

      Oh, you don't speak assembly? Then consult a coder before spouting off your Class A Federal Alpha Constitutional wankspeak.

      • I speak assembly, but if I try to read the patent claims my brain implodes somewhere around claim 2.

        And IF I understtod the patent and could verify for myself that both are identical, I'd have to prove the identity to a judge, who will probably ask what a "gathering of people" has to do with a computer, and why that is relevant to the patent. I'd rather trust a lawyer with that, thankyouverymuch.

      • It's also interesting that the information and terminology used in the patent application is not correct. It refers to "C++ functions" instead of assembly instructions, and it refers to the range of values as between 0 and 256, where it is actually between 0 and 255.

        Not that any of that is evidence, but it's interesting. What the OP was getting at is that, even though the patent description sounds like it perfectly describes the algorithm (minus the above mistakes), that doesn't mean it's not possible tha

      • by Compulawyer ( 318018 ) on Friday November 26, 2010 @02:05PM (#34351320)
        I speak assembly and also speak patent claims. All I said was that you ("you" in the generic sense - not necessarily targeted at the individual who posted the parent comments) cannot imply wrongdoing from the evidence presented so far. It is completely insufficient.

        What is better is to proceed down the path you have identified. First, compare the claims and the specification to the previously published code. Next, I would want to see proof that the named inventors (or those working with the inventors) had access to the code. THEN you are beginning to put together a case.

        It is possible for two people to invent the same thing around the same time - especially in this field where people are working with or building on published standards. The USPTO has a special proceeding - called an interference - that is all about determining which of two or more inventors was the first one to invent something and is thus entitled to a patent.

        All I am saying here is that you should have a complete set of facts before making accusations like this.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Friday November 26, 2010 @10:48AM (#34349878) Homepage

      How much further can you get without getting a lawyer, filing a lawsuit and start subpoenaing evidence? It's exactly the same algorithm, and if you don't want to spend $100k on a patent litigation case than naming and shaming is as close as you'll get. If they pull a defamation suit, then you can bring in the big guns yourself.

      • Try checking the weblogs to see if you can prove that someone associated with the patent accessed the site before filing. Even then this could be a case where the claims of the patent are simply too broad and that an innovation is not accurately captured by the claims. In that case the claims can be amended. There is no proof that anyone copied anything yet, although I note that at least one other poster claims that the application and the code are *highly* similar.

        If the invention is similar to what wa

    • by igomaniac ( 409731 ) on Friday November 26, 2010 @01:52PM (#34351244)

      You are exactly right, this is a serious accusation and he should have contacted Tandberg before making claims like this. And if he had done so he would have found out that the code that the patent was based on was checked in to the Tandberg repository more than half a year before the code in x264 was checked in. Tandberg is preparing an official statement about this as we speak. Making serious accusations like this without first contacting Tandberg is irresponsible and unprofessional.

      • I have no idea how you got this information, but if true this is *exactly* the kind of scenario that I was talking about.
      • by Raenex ( 947668 )

        And if he had done so he would have found out that the code that the patent was based on was checked in to the Tandberg repository more than half a year before the code in x264 was checked in.

        Quite interesting, and I assume you're from Tandberg to know this, but a couple of questions: Given that Tandberg can manipulate the repository in-house, how can you really prove the date? Second, since the patent was filed after the open source commit, isn't the patent busted?

        • Second, since the patent was filed after the open source commit, isn't the patent busted?

          Outside the US, probably. In the US, the filing date is not the end-all-be-all. If Tandberg can prove it was the first to invent then a publication within one year prior to the filing date will not bar issuance of a patent. Publications more than one year before the filing date are an absolute bar regardless of whether an inventor can claim he/she was the first to invent.

          • by Raenex ( 947668 )

            Ah, you're right. That sucks. This means that people can then just look at open source commits for high-value items like media encoding and then file a patent, as may have been done in this case. I remember there was some discussion years back to move the US patent system to be first-to-file or publish, but I guess nothing came of it.

  • Who were defending patent system by this or that excuse or justification, by broad shooting or beautifying or rationalizing what was happening ?

    Just a day ago someone justified some mishap with the system again, and attributed to this, that, and i have told him that the rate things are going is in front of us, the system is faulty, and it wouldnt take a few months before it would reach rock bottom.

    and lo. it didnt even take a day.
    • by pacinpm ( 631330 )

      I can see limitations with patent system. I think it could allow patents for phisical inventions only (real machines). Unfortunately I think removing patents completely will be even worse for small companies or inventors. There is no chance you can be competitive with large and rich company if there is no patents. They can just copy your invention and undercut you.

      • by unity100 ( 970058 ) on Friday November 26, 2010 @10:50AM (#34349898) Homepage Journal
        actually to the contrary, in this case you have no possibility of competing. they have a larger capital to buy stuff, larger capital to sue you, larger capital to pre-patent everything conceivable ahead of you.

        at this state, we are at the dawn of intellectual feudalism age. in such an age, there cant be any small companies or inventors. anyone would have to be subservient to whomever has the biggest capital.

        the parallels in between the current situation, and the early middle ages in which feudalism has formed, are uncanny.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        The problem is that big companies have patents too. They have the resources to get more patents than the small companies, and unless they are completely stagnated, it is giving them a stronger competitive advantage than without patents. Without some kind of patent system where acquisition of patents is somehow more difficult for large companies than startups, I don't think there's a way to not have a patent system generally tip the system in the hands of the big companies more than a system without patent
    • by Steeltoe ( 98226 ) on Friday November 26, 2010 @11:00AM (#34349982) Homepage

      For smaller companies, you're taking a huge risk developing anything, but for the big corporations, who bought these laws in the first place, this ensures less competition, less innovation and higher bar of entry to market. It's perfect, so for them the system works fine, and thus they won't be doing anything with it.

      If the unfairness was aimed at huge corporations, the patent-system and copyright-laws would be gone within a few months or a year. I have no issue with the trademark-laws, and copyright might work out when we have something like GPL. However, the patent-system is such a big beast, it's continual existence is assured because of it, not in spite of it.

      • by dbIII ( 701233 )
        China does not have this impediment and will eat those large companies alive in a few years now that they have an improving education system. The stupid IP laws will bury even those that paid for them.
    • Who were defending patent system by this or that excuse or justification, by broad shooting or beautifying or rationalizing what was happening? Just a day ago someone justified some mishap with the system again, and attributed to this, that, and i have told him that the rate things are going is in front of us, the system is faulty, and it wouldnt take a few months before it would reach rock bottom. and lo. it didnt even take a day.

      I first called you a moron for whining about patents in a thread on trademarks. Then you called me out in a second thread about patents where, as it turned out, the submitter was entirely wrong and the system worked perfectly.

      And now this... And if you scroll up only a few comments to this one [], you find that Tandberg has proof that they had this code in their private repository more than six months prior to the x264 commit, so again, you're wrong.

      My question for you is, how many days in a row are we going

      • im asking about the fools who have brain cells. in case you havent noticed, i have ceased replying to those who has not. one of them being, you.

        this is the final reply you will get from me. but, feel free to post like a frenzied maniac.
      • And now this... And if you scroll up only a few comments to this one, you find that Tandberg has proof that they had this code in their private repository more than six months prior to the x264 commit, so again, you're wrong.

        I claim
        1. A method of obtaining patents comprising of a first step of examining publicly available code repositories for patentable innovation, a second step of rewriting said code, removing any identifying information, a third step of inserting the rewritten code into a private reposi

  • Even if i dont like it, i do think the only viable solution in the current climate is if the open source community gets its own warchest of patents to use in negotiations.

    A fund where you could input your inventions that patented them and then offer them to anyone using a GPL license for their code. If a corporate entity wants in, fine, just cross license and use them for all they care as long as they dont use their patents against GPL licensed code.

  • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Friday November 26, 2010 @10:19AM (#34349714)

    You guys have really fucked everyone up with this "Intellectual Property" concept you invented and marketed to the rest of the world.

    Now everyone is arguing with everyone else because they somehow believe the delusion that they are the only fucking people in the world to ever have thought of something. And guess who is making a ton of money? The lawyers, of course.

    If you have the brains to market your idea (or negotiate with someone who can) then you deserve the profits you'll make. If you just want to be paid because you thought of something, go to hell.

    There's a big difference between having a flash of inspiration in the shower, and actually bringing a product to market. There's this notion that patents reward creative people - as if creative people were in short supply. Everyone is more or less creative. Those who get the reward, however, are the ones willing to make the effort to develop their ideas.

    • by king neckbeard ( 1801738 ) on Friday November 26, 2010 @10:49AM (#34349890)
      'Intellectual property' is not an American concept. England is probably the most to blame, but they were going from arbitrary monopolies granted by the king to moderately logical monopolies that somewhat made sense given the primitive state of economics and psychology at the time. The problem is that we haven't progressed, and that we've had escalation occur, often through racheting mechanisms aimed at harmonization.
      • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Friday November 26, 2010 @11:16AM (#34350122)

        I'll concede that point, although today's laws have deviated and perverted so much what was intended that "IP" today bears very little resemblance to what was "protected" 200 or more years ago.

        I remember going to museums as a kid and being told that I wasn't allowed to take FLASH pictures because, of course, the repeated flash of thousands of tourists' cameras every day would eventually degrade the pigments in the paintings. Now you are told, with flashless digital cameras because the museum just doesn't want you to, and they'll feed you some completely false copyright or IP garbage as an excuse. I believe the copyright on a Rembrandt expired a long time ago.

      • 'Intellectual property' is not an American concept. England is probably the most to blame

        Actually, neither are to blame for the root of what is mostly wrong with Intellectual Property: moral entitlement. France and Germany were the first to push for a recognition of Intellectual Property as a moral right, which resulted in the Berne Convention.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      Those who get the reward, however, are the ones willing to make the effort to develop their ideas.

      No, it's those that are best at ripping off creative people by putting it in their own product and kill them on margins and market power. You put down long hours actually doing product development, only to find yourself overrun by cheap clones that have done nothing but pick your product apart and copy it. I remember that happened to one company around here, it was a good idea, they actually had product on the market for one season produced locally and sold well, very far from "a flash of inspiration in the

  • Public domain? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Amanitin ( 1603983 )

    You can't patent anything that's in the public domain already. I'd say this move is based on the negligence of application referees. Rightly so.

    • What does PD have to do with this? And you can't patent other people's inventions either - at least, not in the US.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Steeltoe ( 98226 )

      No, but you can patent any extention of something in public domain. In most cases, you can just reword the patent a little here, and include some differentiation there, and whoopie, suddenly it's an innovative piece of patent, ready to slay all other ideas that even resemble it!

      You can't patent something already publicaly disclosed, however, it's still possible to create a minefield of patents, who someone sooner or later, is bound to step on at least a dozen of them.

      • by thijsh ( 910751 )
        That's a strange contradiction. Change a little and get a patent that even covers implementations that are wildly different... Wouldn't they also be able to pull the same trick and change something trivial to have their own patent?

        I agree that patents have become ridiculous, but this exploit seems to be able to be used by anyone, not just the patent trolls.
        • You can make a slight change or extension to an existing idea and get a patent regardless of whether or not the existing idea is patented. Because of this, you can have some things require several patents to be produced because an implementation makes use of several patents that are derivative of each other. There's something similar with copyright. I could slightly change Hamlet and legally claim it as my own composition, but if someone uses a derivative of my derivative, they would be guilty of copyrig
  • Patents for software are founded on the idea that the software drives a mechanical device to perform tasks. However, Software also falls under copyright. Would you not therefore be able to sue a company for copyright infringement if they patent software that you wrote? That would be a fun little test of the legal system...
    • functionality isn't protected by copyright. If they were lazy enough, it might work, but it'd be very difficult to improve. Accusing the patent applicant for defarding the USPTO would probably be a better route.
      • by Greyfox ( 87712 )
        True, but actual source code is. I'm pretty sure that if the code submitted to the patent office was substantially the same as the code from the open source project, a copyright claim would hold up. And as any college TA can tell you, just changing variable names (And often forgetting comments) still constitutes plagiarism.
  • It would seem the Oracle lost it's touch... It's not very prescient to patent something after someone else published it for the world to see.
    It's supposed to be *before* otherwise it's just called copying, cheating or stealing instead of prophetic, prediction or precognition.

    Oracle, you're doing it wrong!
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by thijsh ( 910751 )
      Note to self: Tandberg (tm) not related to Oracle (tm)... They are part of the Cisco (tm) network imperium and although they deal in telepresence they are not supernatural in any way.
  • Oh, I thought someone had patented the very idea of open sourcing code.

  • by Just Some Guy ( 3352 ) <> on Friday November 26, 2010 @11:58AM (#34350440) Homepage Journal

    Take note, pro-RIAA patsies: if this story is true, then it's a case of actual IP theft. That is, Tandberg would actually have deprived the original authors of the use of their own work, in this situation by making it illegal for them to continue distributing their invention.

    • It wouldn't be theft, but it would be a somewhat fraudulent patent claims. The Sony rootkit using LAME was industrial scale commercial copyright infringement by one of the big four. That was a bigger offence than most anything domestic on their radar.
      • It wouldn't be theft

        From the first paragraph in the Wikipedia article on theft []:

        The actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another's property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

        It would be the "unauthorised [...] using of another's property" (x264 project didn't authorize Tandberg to use their code as the basis of Tandberg's patent application) wi

  • The code in the patent application has been translated into legalese, wonder if that's done by machine? If so, it would produce predictable patterns and be compilable back into C.

    My next entry for the Obfuscated C contest will be*:

    A method or apparatus for compiling a patent into a C program that, when executed, outputs its patent.

    Inventors: Bazzargh, W.V.V. Quine

    *) of course I can't be arsed actually writing this

    • Ok so I got bored and wrote a quine patent application. Almost as painful as COBOL. Havent tested it by running it through the lawyers.



      1. A method for constructing a textual representation of this patent
      application, by executing the method described in its claims; the
      method comprising:
      (i) emitting the text result of applying a decoding procedure to a
      data string S, followed the content of S, followed by a period
      character ('.').

      2. The method according to Clai

  • should it be of any surprise this sort of thing is happening?

  • ... the patent's claims explicitly mislabel critical assembly instructions as 'c++ functions'... so to be non-infringing to those claims, all you have to do is NOT create c++ wrapper functions for these assembly instructions with these specific names.

    The method according to Claim 2, wherein the creating of the array C is executed by a C++ function PCMPGTB, and the creating of M from C is executed by a C++ function PMOVMSKB.

If graphics hackers are so smart, why can't they get the bugs out of fresh paint?