• Advertisement

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Stencil Shadows Patented!? WTF!

This topic is 5324 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.

Recommended Posts

Guest Anonymous Poster
Solution is simple:

Doom III Menu
|
--Options
|
--Graphics
|
--Advanced

[x] Use Z-fail shadows (please uncheck this if
you are playing Doom III in USA or Japan)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
quote:
Original post by drewslater
I figure that in this particular case since there are so many games out already that use this shadowing technique there is no way the patent holder can sue because they have allowed it to go on for so long. IIRC you must consistantly challenge patent violations in order to retain to right to do so. I may be totally wrong though. It just really sucks to have to worry about using all kinds of code because the idea/algorithm is patented and you might get sued for using it without a license. Where do you draw the line on what ideas merit a patent (e.g. Amazon sueing Barnes&Noble over "One click checkout" - I mean how simple of a concept is this?!)?

ATS


Rambus anyone? Think how long SDRAM was out before they decided to start sueing companies for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by deiterate
However, revolutionary ideas would occur more slowly if we were not given limiting parameters such as patents. They force us to develop more original methods. It seems to me that if the two gentlemen who hold the patent for "Carmack's Reverse" ever bother to make it binding, there will be a revolutionary mind out there who will develop an even more elegant solution (and hopefully that person will not patent it as well).


you really believe that? that development will _benefit_ from having to reinvent the wheel all the time instead of building upon previous work? good thing the greeks didnt patent math or we would still try to prove that 1!=0

i think ms even has patented the undo-function. its not necessarily morons who make the decisions. but deciding if something is worth a patent without having a clue of the subject sure looks moronic. eu politicians dreaming of how software patents will help our economy is just as moronic. with us and japanese companies probably having patented everything from bubblesort to variables all we would gain is the option to be sued into oblivion if an us/jap competitor feels like it. somehow they miss the little detail, that introducing sw patents and sniping your fingers wont give our companies a hundred thousand patents to join the game of "you can use mine if i can use yours". it will rather look like "you have nothing of use so just give us the money".

though i AM kind of surprised that ms didnt use all their patents to get rid of linux. after all they're already down to fud and selling training cds "how to make your customer not buy linux".

oh damn, i better start saving money to patent my frustum culling method, my camera and all that other stuff, hoping someone will use it and make me rich *lol*

[edited by - Trienco on September 23, 2003 4:45:58 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you''ll be burn to the stakes for that before you could even claim your pension benefits.

The world is a silly place. Better live with it or live in a cave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FYI this presentation is from GDC March 1999 describes zfail stencil volume intersection:

http://developer.nvidia.com/attach/1807

The patent being discussed actually claims z pass stencil incs & decs with a reversed zbuffer test, not z fail stencil operations that are commonly used today. It is not described in more general terms it is described and claimed very specifically as a reverse z test with z pass increments and decrements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by drewslater
IIRC you must consistantly challenge patent violations in order to retain to right to do so. I may be totally wrong though.


You''re thinking of trademark violations, those have to be challenged whenever they pop up. Copyrright and patent violations you get to pick and choose the good/profitable cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement