gdalgorithms-list

RE: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision detection pa tent]

[Robert D. <RD...@ac...>]

Not sure about the other companies, but before Atari hit problems and had to
sell up they took $50 Million from Sega for patent infringment.  I wouldn't
be surprised if they've enforced others too.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicolas Serres [mailto:nic...@ch...]
> Sent: 17 August 2000 22:42
> To: gda...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision 
> detection
> pa tent]
> 
> 
> I played Sega Rally 2 a lot last summer, when we (some 
> coders) decided to
> sacrifice hour holidays not to be late for the dreamcast 
> version of our
> game, and our wonderful paranoid management left on vacation 
> to some sunny
> place without giving us the keys of where the devkits were 
> stored... Hmmm
> I'm glad we all left this company.. At least this improved my 
> sega rally 2
> skills and I can tell you that in my japanese version, there 
> were definitely
> ghost cars (althought they were opaque). Did it stay in us/european
> versions?
> 
> I don't know what attitude got hasbro with sega, as it is a 
> very different
> company because they are also the ones you require approval 
> from them, and
> major buisness partners.. Did they ever sue nintendo, sega or 
> sony, who
> obviously did infringe some of their "claimed" patents ??? 
> I'm curious if
> they also sue those major console companies for their 
> first-party titles.
> 
> IIRC, sgi has many patents on character animation (and 
> probably lots of
> other 3d stuff too)..What's their attitude towards game developers?
> 
> Nicolas
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Forsyth" <to...@mu...>
> To: <gda...@li...>
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 11:06 PM
> Subject: RE: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision 
> detection pa
> tent]
> 
> 
> > I seem to remember TOCA had a ghost-car mode in it. Did 
> they license it,
> or
> > just put their foot down and say "go on - sue us then".
> >
> > Tom Forsyth - Muckyfoot bloke.
> > Whizzing and pasting and pooting through the day.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> 

RE: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision detection patent]

[Alex P. <al...@Ex...>]

Thatcher,

I hate software patents as much as the next guy, I think they are a
totally obsolete
concept that was a bad idea 100 years ago and is a worse idea now.
Regarding this comment:

>Companies like IBM and Microsoft are filing
>software patents at a furious pace, carving up territory that was
pioneered
>by others.=20

Since I work here, although I am not a lawyer and my work has nothing to
do
with graphics.

This stupid software patenting has brought up a very dangerous situation
for
companies who have money, like IBM and MS.
If MS doesn't patent everything it does it runs the risk of getting sued
for
using algorithms etc. which some guy may have invented earlier but never
published.

The problem is that there is no way to know if you are the 1st to invent
an algorithm, so if you come up with something that seems new you better
patent it or some other guy who discovered it 2 years ago, who sees that
MS is using this algorithm will apply for the patent it just to be able
to
sue MS for it.
If you dont have money of course you wont be a target.  You wont believe
how many people make money by screwing around with the legal system like
that.

I think patents for software algorithms should be abolished as a whole,
then
we may stand a chance of clearing this up, but without that no one can
afford to take the 1st step, its like the arms race... we need a
Software Patent Abolishment Treaty (SPAT).

BTW.
If I come up with a faster route from my house to work by taking the
freeway,
can I patent it and force everyone else who uses the freeway to pay for
my patent?
I hope not.  But I am afraid that technically this is probably possible.

Alex

Dislaimer:
This message does not in anyway represent an official position of
Microsoft.
These are solely the author's personal opinions.

RE: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision detection patent]

[Scott L. <va...@be...>]

Sadly, Mr. Nagle wins either way with this patent controversy.  He either
erects a roadblock to physics simulation in every major arena in which it
is exploited or he gets a ton of free publicity for himself and animats.com
which leads to job offers and sales of his products.  he may get both.  Either
way, he won the moment the patent was accepted.

Scott "There's no such thing as bad publicity" Le Grand

RE: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision detection patent]

[Brian B. <BBa...@sc...>]

**********************
>>> al...@Ex... 08/16/00 01:20PM >>>
If MS doesn't patent everything it does it runs the risk of getting sued
for
using algorithms etc. which some guy may have invented earlier but never
published.

The problem is that there is no way to know if you are the 1st to invent
an algorithm, so if you come up with something that seems new you better
patent it or some other guy who discovered it 2 years ago, who sees that
MS is using this algorithm will apply for the patent it just to be able
to
sue MS for it.

**********************

This isn't quite true as I understand it.  Even if Microsoft patents an algorithm that someone invented earlier, that person can, if he has proof, still patent the algorithm.  He could then force Microsoft to either stop using the algorithm or pay royalties.

From what I understand, patents are just formal notices.  If there is documented prior art, then the patent is null and void.  So if Microsoft or anyone else patents an algorithm that was developed earlier by someone else, they are wasting money because the patent is bogus.

I may be completely off-base here, but as far as I know this is how patents work.

Brian Bartlow

RE: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision detection pa tent]

[Pallister, K. <kim...@in...>]

And the first one must be for Hard Drivin'

Just my 2c worth taking you through arcade-game-patent-nostalgia journey.

Kim Pallister

We will find a way or we will make one.
                     - Hannibal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Forsyth [mailto:to...@mu...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 4:18 AM
> To: gda...@li...
> Subject: RE: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision 
> detection
> pa tent]
> 
> 
> That second one is for Gauntlet of course. A great game, but 
> patentable?
> Then again, these are the people who patented the concept of 
> a register that
> scrolls the screen left by the value you write into it.
> 
> Tom Forsyth - Muckyfoot bloke.
> Whizzing and pasting and pooting through the day.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sam McGrath [mailto:sa...@dn...]
> > Sent: 16 August 2000 11:49
> > To: gda...@li...
> > Subject: Re: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision 
> > detection
> > pa tent]
> > 
> > 
> > At 11:13 AM 8/16/2000 +0100, you wrote:
> > >> A practical example is Atari's patent on 'ghost cars' in 
> > racing games,
> > >which is still actively enforced.
> > >
> > >I never knew they patented that!  Amazing... and scary.  
> > Does anyone have a
> > >link to this one?
> > 
> > I found this on the US Patent page:
> > 
> > http://patents.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/ifetch4?ENG+PATBIB-1976-2000+
> 0+972113+4+3+3
> 18762+OF+98+291+51+atari
> 
> Not only that, but there's some other atari patents on there 
> which I find
> pretty hard to believe.  Look at this one:
> 
> http://patents.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/ifetch4?ENG+PATBIB-1976-2000+
0+972113+4+4+7
4061+OF+69+291+51+atari

Any other examples of wacky patents??

-Sam
______________________
Sam McGrath
sa...@dn...
http://www.dnai.com/~sammy
ICQ 5151160


_______________________________________________
GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
GDA...@li...
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list

_______________________________________________
GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
GDA...@li...
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list

RE: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision detection p a tent]

[Pallister, K. <kim...@in...>]

Thank you. I needed a laugh. I reminded of the old air force training films
you'd see with the guy in the centrigufe. Hee hee.

Kim Pallister

We will find a way or we will make one.
                     - Hannibal


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pierre Terdiman [mailto:p.t...@wa...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 1:38 PM
> To: gda...@li...
> Subject: Re: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision 
> detection
> pa tent]
> 
> 
> While we're at it, you missed the best ever......
> http://www.swin.edu.au/astronomy/pbourke/fun/patent/index.html
> 
> So far my favorite.
> 
> Pierre
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steven Clynes <sc...@ti...>
> To: <gda...@li...>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 10:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision 
> detection pa
> tent]
> 
> 
> > For a really big list of ridiculous patents check this page!!!
> >
> > http://www.invention.com/
> >
> > First time I saw this page I thought it was a joke, then, 
> as I read more
> > of the patants, I realized it was for real!!!
> >
> > Then I found myself getting more and more angry at the whole patent
> > issue.!!!
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steve
> >
> > All opinions expressed are my own, not that of my employer.
> >
> > --
> > Steve Clynes
> > sc...@ti...
> > "Everyone has a photographic memory. Some don't have film."
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> > GDA...@li...
> > http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> 

RE: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision detection pa tent]

[Lipson, P. <Pet...@br...>]

Nope, it was for PoliceTrainer (tm) - which was a spinoff of Hard Drivin.
But the patented technology referred to here was the training component, not
the driving engine itself. As far as I know, no police depts actually
-bought- any...

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pallister, Kim [mailto:kim...@in...]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 4:36 PM
> To: gda...@li...
> Subject: RE: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision 
> detection
> pa tent]
> 
> 
> And the first one must be for Hard Drivin'
> 
> Just my 2c worth taking you through 
> arcade-game-patent-nostalgia journey.
> 
> Kim Pallister
> 
> We will find a way or we will make one.
>                      - Hannibal
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Forsyth [mailto:to...@mu...]
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 4:18 AM
> > To: gda...@li...
> > Subject: RE: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision 
> > detection
> > pa tent]
> > 
> > 
> > That second one is for Gauntlet of course. A great game, but 
> > patentable?
> > Then again, these are the people who patented the concept of 
> > a register that
> > scrolls the screen left by the value you write into it.
> > 
> > Tom Forsyth - Muckyfoot bloke.
> > Whizzing and pasting and pooting through the day.
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sam McGrath [mailto:sa...@dn...]
> > > Sent: 16 August 2000 11:49
> > > To: gda...@li...
> > > Subject: Re: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision 
> > > detection
> > > pa tent]
> > > 
> > > 
> > > At 11:13 AM 8/16/2000 +0100, you wrote:
> > > >> A practical example is Atari's patent on 'ghost cars' in 
> > > racing games,
> > > >which is still actively enforced.
> > > >
> > > >I never knew they patented that!  Amazing... and scary.  
> > > Does anyone have a
> > > >link to this one?
> > > 
> > > I found this on the US Patent page:
> > > 
> > > http://patents.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/ifetch4?ENG+PATBIB-1976-2000+
> > 0+972113+4+3+3
> > 18762+OF+98+291+51+atari
> > 
> > Not only that, but there's some other atari patents on there 
> > which I find
> > pretty hard to believe.  Look at this one:
> > 
> > http://patents.uspto.gov/cgi-bin/ifetch4?ENG+PATBIB-1976-2000+
> 0+972113+4+4+7
> 4061+OF+69+291+51+atari
> 
> Any other examples of wacky patents??
> 
> -Sam
> ______________________
> Sam McGrath
> sa...@dn...
> http://www.dnai.com/~sammy
> ICQ 5151160
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list
> 

RE: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision detection pa tent]

[Jani P. <ja...@ar...>]

As far as I remember, one of the requirements for a new patent is that the
patented idea be non-obvious. Lot of the software patents I have seen are
clearly obvious to someone who works in the field but how would you prove
that in a court.

> ----------
> From: 	Akbar A.[SMTP:sye...@ea...]
> Reply To: 	gda...@li...
> Sent: 	Thursday, August 17, 2000 2:28 AM
> To: 	gda...@li...
> Subject: 	RE: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision
> detection patent]
> 
> what about non-profit software or "free" software?
> can the company's that hold patents effect us as well?
> for ex.
> if i release a chunk of software that uses a "patented" routine.
> could that company in theory target _ME_ in court?
> how does patent infringement court cases even work in the software field.
> Big Corporate Company versus small independent developer?
> are these even heard of?
> what about countersealing by saying that the patent is "logical" or was
> going to come anyways?
> 
> 

Re: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision detection patent]

[Kent Q. <ken...@co...>]

IANAL, but as I recall, the phrase is "obvious to a skilled practioner".
It seems clear that the USPTO strategy in recent years has been to
ignore that phrase and let the courts sort it out later.

Understand, however, that most of these cases never reach court. What
tends to happen is this:

* GreatSatan Corp. goes to the USPTO and gets a patent on the bubble
sort. 
* They include it in the list of several thousand patents they hold, and
sign a cross-licensing agreement with IBM, Microsoft, and several other
large companies.
* They find several small companies with less money than brains and
notify them they're infringing on the patent, but that they'll license
them the right to continue to use the technology for a smallish fee (a
couple of thousand dollars). Realizing that it will cost them that much
for the first phone call with a decent patent attorney, they sign the
license.
* They find a couple of medium-sized companies and extort them for large
license fees. They point out that all sorts of companies both big and
small have licensed this patent rather than fight it. If anyone puts up
a fight and starts talking about going to court with "prior art" or
"obvious" claims, they drop the fees and give away the license. 

Played properly by a big company with idle attorneys, even the most
obvious patent never goes to court, unless they have the bad luck to
find someone who is both principled and rich (rare in itself), and who
also cares enough to fight to the bitter end.

What does this mean to the free software developer? If someone thinks
the patent is being infringed, and that your work is impacting their
patent rights (if you give it away how can they sell it?), they can get
an injunction to keep you from distributing the work, and they can sue
you for damages.

On the other hand, if the patented technology is only a small portion of
what you're doing, and you're really doing it for free, you might find
some patent holders would be willing to license it for free or very
cheap.

	Kent

Jani Peltonen wrote:
> 
> As far as I remember, one of the requirements for a new patent is that the
> patented idea be non-obvious. Lot of the software patents I have seen are
> clearly obvious to someone who works in the field but how would you prove
> that in a court.
> 
> > ----------
> > From:         Akbar A.[SMTP:sye...@ea...]
> > Reply To:     gda...@li...
> > Sent:         Thursday, August 17, 2000 2:28 AM
> > To:   gda...@li...
> > Subject:      RE: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision
> > detection patent]
> >
> > what about non-profit software or "free" software?
> > can the company's that hold patents effect us as well?
> > for ex.
> > if i release a chunk of software that uses a "patented" routine.
> > could that company in theory target _ME_ in court?
> > how does patent infringement court cases even work in the software field.
> > Big Corporate Company versus small independent developer?
> > are these even heard of?
> > what about countersealing by saying that the patent is "logical" or was
> > going to come anyways?
> >
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Quirk                   | CogniToy: Intelligent toys...
Game Architect               |           for intelligent minds.
ken...@co...      | http://www.cognitoy.com/     
_____________________________|_________________________________________

RE: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision detection patent]

[Akbar A. <sye...@ea...>]

i see,
apparently big companies have more power than i thought they have.
oh well.

somebody mentioned that companies like ms and ibm are patenting a lot of
algo's.
i understand that these companies must protect there assets by taking these
extreme action, but;
a patent doesn't effect us if the owner doesn't take action?
couldn't ms or ibm sign official treaties with developers saying that they
will not sue developers who use these algorithms.
by doing this, they are still protecting there assets from greedy people
looking for money and, us as developers can work of there algorithms by not
having the fear of getting sued?

i thought of this last night when i was sleeping, i hope this makes sense
:-)


peace.
akbar A.


-----Original Message-----
From: gda...@li...
[mailto:gda...@li...]On Behalf Of Kent
Quirk
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 7:37 AM
To: gda...@li...
Subject: Re: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision detection
patent]


IANAL, but as I recall, the phrase is "obvious to a skilled practioner".
It seems clear that the USPTO strategy in recent years has been to
ignore that phrase and let the courts sort it out later.

Understand, however, that most of these cases never reach court. What
tends to happen is this:

* GreatSatan Corp. goes to the USPTO and gets a patent on the bubble
sort.
* They include it in the list of several thousand patents they hold, and
sign a cross-licensing agreement with IBM, Microsoft, and several other
large companies.
* They find several small companies with less money than brains and
notify them they're infringing on the patent, but that they'll license
them the right to continue to use the technology for a smallish fee (a
couple of thousand dollars). Realizing that it will cost them that much
for the first phone call with a decent patent attorney, they sign the
license.
* They find a couple of medium-sized companies and extort them for large
license fees. They point out that all sorts of companies both big and
small have licensed this patent rather than fight it. If anyone puts up
a fight and starts talking about going to court with "prior art" or
"obvious" claims, they drop the fees and give away the license.

Played properly by a big company with idle attorneys, even the most
obvious patent never goes to court, unless they have the bad luck to
find someone who is both principled and rich (rare in itself), and who
also cares enough to fight to the bitter end.

What does this mean to the free software developer? If someone thinks
the patent is being infringed, and that your work is impacting their
patent rights (if you give it away how can they sell it?), they can get
an injunction to keep you from distributing the work, and they can sue
you for damages.

On the other hand, if the patented technology is only a small portion of
what you're doing, and you're really doing it for free, you might find
some patent holders would be willing to license it for free or very
cheap.

	Kent

Jani Peltonen wrote:
>
> As far as I remember, one of the requirements for a new patent is that the
> patented idea be non-obvious. Lot of the software patents I have seen are
> clearly obvious to someone who works in the field but how would you prove
> that in a court.
>
> > ----------
> > From:         Akbar A.[SMTP:sye...@ea...]
> > Reply To:     gda...@li...
> > Sent:         Thursday, August 17, 2000 2:28 AM
> > To:   gda...@li...
> > Subject:      RE: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision
> > detection patent]
> >
> > what about non-profit software or "free" software?
> > can the company's that hold patents effect us as well?
> > for ex.
> > if i release a chunk of software that uses a "patented" routine.
> > could that company in theory target _ME_ in court?
> > how does patent infringement court cases even work in the software
field.
> > Big Corporate Company versus small independent developer?
> > are these even heard of?
> > what about countersealing by saying that the patent is "logical" or was
> > going to come anyways?
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
> GDA...@li...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Kent Quirk                   | CogniToy: Intelligent toys...
Game Architect               |           for intelligent minds.
ken...@co...      | http://www.cognitoy.com/
_____________________________|_________________________________________

_______________________________________________
GDAlgorithms-list mailing list
GDA...@li...
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/gdalgorithms-list

RE: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision detection pa tent]

[Tom F. <to...@mu...>]

I seem to remember TOCA had a ghost-car mode in it. Did they license it, or
just put their foot down and say "go on - sue us then".

Tom Forsyth - Muckyfoot bloke.
Whizzing and pasting and pooting through the day.

> From: Dean Calver [mailto:de...@ra...]
> 
> The most annoying  thing about the Atari 'ghost car' patent, 
> is that Midway
> (who now own it) ACTIVELY enforce it,
> I know because 2 years the game we had just released 
> (Powerboat Racing) was
> hit with it, we had a mode with
> a recorded ghost boat to race again. Midway told us we had 
> infringed there
> patent and could they have some
> money, I never found our if we paid or if our publisher 
> (Interplay) fought
> them.
> 
> So now we never include ghost anything in any our race games.
> 
> The actual defination involves transparency (ghost like 
> look), so if you do
> include pre-recorded cars to race again
> the visual image is very important. An lawyer thought that if 
> we had made
> the 'ghost' solid it wouldn't have affected
> us, but we were released by this time.
> 
> Usual stuff, that I'm not a lawyer and my memory be going so name of
> companies may be wrong etc
> (I pretty sure Midway brought Atari though)
> 
> Be afraid, be very afraid
>     Deano
> 
> Dean Calver,
> Senior Games Programmer,
> Promethean Designs Ltd.

Re: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision detection pa tent]

[Nicolas S. <nic...@ch...>]

I played Sega Rally 2 a lot last summer, when we (some coders) decided to
sacrifice hour holidays not to be late for the dreamcast version of our
game, and our wonderful paranoid management left on vacation to some sunny
place without giving us the keys of where the devkits were stored... Hmmm
I'm glad we all left this company.. At least this improved my sega rally 2
skills and I can tell you that in my japanese version, there were definitely
ghost cars (althought they were opaque). Did it stay in us/european
versions?

I don't know what attitude got hasbro with sega, as it is a very different
company because they are also the ones you require approval from them, and
major buisness partners.. Did they ever sue nintendo, sega or sony, who
obviously did infringe some of their "claimed" patents ??? I'm curious if
they also sue those major console companies for their first-party titles.

IIRC, sgi has many patents on character animation (and probably lots of
other 3d stuff too)..What's their attitude towards game developers?

Nicolas

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Forsyth" <to...@mu...>
To: <gda...@li...>
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 11:06 PM
Subject: RE: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision detection pa
tent]


> I seem to remember TOCA had a ghost-car mode in it. Did they license it,
or
> just put their foot down and say "go on - sue us then".
>
> Tom Forsyth - Muckyfoot bloke.
> Whizzing and pasting and pooting through the day.

Re: [Algorithms] pissing in the well [was: Collision detection patent]

[Eero P. <epa...@ko...>]

Matthew Davies wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Well I work and live in the UK.  How does this effect me?  Can U.S. patents
> effect my work?
> 

If your product will be sold/manifactured in USA, then it will...

		Eero