Stencil Shadows Patented!? WTF!

drewslater · 2003-09-27T13:26:48

It has been brought to my attention that two guys named William Bilodeau and Michael Songy have filed a patent for a stencil shadow technique (Carmack''s reverse I believe). View their patent claim here Anyone care to comment on any implications of this patent or similar ones. I think it is rediculous for people to patent algorithms like this. What are the odds of this patent actually being enforced? Will these guys have the ability to sue all game developers so they have to pay royalties to use stencil shadows? I find this very hard to believe. I am under the impression that basically anything you pay to be patented will be awarded whether there is proven merit for it or not and the place where things are sorted out is when they go to court. This still is a pain in the ass for the people who get sued by people trying to enforce these rediculous patents. Anyone know of any precedents for software patents? ATS

Graphics and GPU Programming Programming

Started by drewslater September 21, 2003 01:49 PM

55 comments, last by drewslater 20 years, 6 months ago

oliii

2,202

September 26, 2003 07:28 PM

then you''ll get a pack of hungry lawyers nibbling at your legs, or shall we say, your wallet.

As far as I''m concerned, I don''t give a damn, as I live in Europe. They can stick their patents where the sun don''t shine. Even then, I don''t care, it''s not like I am in a multi-billion business (no Ferrari in sight in the parking lot, not even a Volvo). I get paid peanuts and my brain belong to my employers (anything I code belongs to them, even in my spare time). So IF I come up with such things and get in trouble, it''s their business, I could argue.

Anyway, it does not make sense. If you have a patent-grade idea, and if people are interested, they will come to you. Unless you are ''stupid'' enough to publish the recipe on the net. No need for patents.

... On second thoughts, it does protect you against reverse engineering. Anyway, I am a believer in free-for-all ideas, sharing algorithms, ''patents'' ect... The mere satisfaction it could bring of being aknowledged is enough for me. I mean, "Carmack''s reverse", it''s got quite a ring to it.

Everything is better with Metal.

oliii

2,202

September 26, 2003 07:33 PM

BTW, I implemented a "Carmack''s Reverse" demo for fun, and, heresy, SEND COPIES TO RANDOM PEOPLE BY EMAIL! Better get my wallet ready.

Everything is better with Metal.

deiterate

122

September 26, 2003 08:05 PM

quote:mathematically they are equivalent. smaller, and not bigger, is the same. for real numbers at least. and we''re talking about real numbers here. so it is the same. just a different implementation. but software patents are not about implementation details. so for the patent, its the same.

...

davepermen.net

I am not sure I follow you on this. I am certain that software patents are based on implementation details. What else would one patent? I doubt that the patent in question would have gone to such length as to describe the precise details of the technique if it was not to be based on the implimentation.

Oh, and about ''other'' shadow rendering techniques, I am aware of many others... I am just too picky in my tastes and I just can''t make myself like any of them (including ''Carmack''s Reverse'')

I will drop this now. I never intended any offense in any of my posts, quite the opposite, actually. Although, I do not believe I have offended anyone... at least, I hope not.

davepermen

1,047

September 27, 2003 03:45 AM

nope, you haven''t..

btw, i moved away from stencil shadows because they are so ugly and non-scalable and non-general. so what''s the fuzz about it? there''s much bether stuff existing.

well.. i think its about the princip.. this is so utterly wrong.

If that''s not the help you''re after then you''re going to have to explain the problem better than what you have. - joanusdmentia

davepermen.net

If that's not the help you're after then you're going to have to explain the problem better than what you have. - joanusdmentia

My Page davepermen.net | My Music on Bandcamp and on Soundcloud

Anonymous

September 27, 2003 03:58 AM

re: software patents and implementation details

in general, software pattents must thread a fine line between providing implementation details and not....

for instance, there is a difference (in software patents) between using zfail and zpass to compute the same value. software patents are all about "a method" or sometimes "a system and a method" for doing something.

however, in writing the software patent, you do not want to include any details of implementation like (for example) using the OpenGL call "glDepthFunction"
you wouldn''t want your patent to be worked around just by using D3D.

i have filed several software patents based off of some network based software systems i was designing. however, it was important that we not _limit_ our patent to network systems. . . so, for instance, we might not say "network protocol" but instead "command protocol" ... because then we''re covered if we port to ... function call inteface, whatever.

additionally, i believe general rule of thumb for what shoud/can be patented is this: if the innovation to NOT obvious to someone who is NOT an expert in the field, then it is patent-worthy. the definition of "expert" is, of course, the fuzzy part.

anyways, yann, i can''t tell you if it is worth filing software patents. i do know that if your patents are granted, they are a mechanism to place a monetary value on your IP... worst case you have to sell them.. but good/better cases you can license it. furthermore, you can protect yourself / your IP with a well written software patent. (ignoring any moral or ethical stance you may take -- i believe, for instance, that carmack is violently opposed to software patents.)

Captian Goatse

122

September 27, 2003 04:14 AM

This is all non-sense. US patent law has proven it million times that patents are owned by those who have the most money.

sjelkjd

171

September 27, 2003 01:26 PM

quote:Original post by Captian Goatse
This is all non-sense. US patent law has proven it million times that patents are owned by those who have the most money.

ibm?

Stencil Shadows Patented!? WTF!

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Stencil Shadows Patented!? WTF!

This topic is closed to new replies.

Popular Topics

Recommended Tutorials

Reticulating splines