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

[Jeff L. <je...@di...>]

My manditory response rant as a researcher and independent developer.  Please ignore if you do not care.

I obviously agree with Thatcher's sentiment (personally going back to the whole Compton's multimedia debacle anyone else get a legal letter on that one?)  but I feel I need to point out a couple of things.

There are different levels of patents and we have to acknowledge that they are realities in today's business world.  However, we as consumers need to do as you suggest and through our dollars (and business dealings) try and effect change.  

One example is that you mention V-clip.  Well it is actually patented.  It doesn't say anywhere in the code or on Brian's website that this is the case.  However, Merl, who Brian works for routinely patents new technology (some companies pay people extra for this) and Brian doesn't see a problem with it (He even has one with Jessica Hogins who I like as well).  Now MERL is not a bad guy in this.  They encourage Brian to continue to publish his work.  They (at least for now and with regard to software) are non-aggressive about their patents and seem to largely use them for protection.  When I found this out though, I urged Brian to make note of this in his code, publications, and website because I feel potential users must know when things they are looking at are patented for their own protection.  Hopefully Merl will do this.

There are lots of them that are silly.  Just look at SGI's patents. SGI has a completely broad patent on IK.  However, they haven't gone after competition in the animation program market (that I know of).  They also have things like using particles to render hair (probably took a hour hour to come up with this "improvement" on Reeve's particle system).

I used to get mad at all of them.  But have since given up that as impractical.  You could never get anything done and would just worry and not research.  The realities of modern research mean that people sometimes need to build up IP to get money and that can mean building your patent portfolio.  

I agree with Thatcher's list but would add my own spin.

1. Document your personal research well for self protection.  Have a list of every article you looked at so you are armed if someone claims you ripped them off.  This will not totally protect you as independent discovery is not an excuse.  But a well written lawyer letter explaining that your sources are well documented and all from prior art will scare off most.

2. If you work on projects for clients, these days most will ask for you to assist them in filing for patents on your work.  Insist and have put in your contracts that you fully support and will help with copyright protection.  But insist on leaving out any patent language.  We have been doing this for years and it has only been an issue once.  Those people we wanting to be DOT-COM sellouts who thought that a quick patent was the road to riches.  We told them to take a hike.

3. Refuse to buy any product or service from a company that "aggressively enforces and abuse software patents".  I personally disagree with but understand defensive patents but once you use it as a tool to stifle competition, you are off my list.

4. Publish your work so others can use it as prior art.  Some businesses claim that this will lose you customers.  I can prove that it gets you them.

5. Agree totally on the write your congressperson about funding the USPTO so they can afford to get a clue or enact legislation that gives them better guidelines.

At 11:28 PM 8/15/2000 -0400, you wrote:
>Would Nagle be using their work in Animats?  Would any of us have the option
>of re-implementing these algorithms for our game projects, or would we be
>stuck paying to license buggy I-Collide code?  Would any of the improvements
>to I-Collide or GJK suggested by the community at large (such as Nagle's
>suggestions) be publically available, or would they be buried in a
>licensee-only message board somewhere, or would they not even have been
>developed in the first place?  Would we have the option of rolling our own
>physics for our game engines, or would we have to license Havok et al?
>Would Havok et al even exist?