• Advertisement

Archived

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

Stencil Shadows Patented!? WTF!

This topic is 5321 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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
BTW, I implemented a "Carmack''s Reverse" demo for fun, and, heresy, SEND COPIES TO RANDOM PEOPLE BY EMAIL! Better get my wallet ready.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
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.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Advertisement