skinner@saber.UUCP (Robert Skinner) (11/08/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** A while back a discussion was started about someone who owned the patent to doing non-destructive cursors by XOR'ing. A friend of mine discussed this not long ago with the owner of the patent, because my friend was infringing on parts of the patent. By the way, this company is not asking just $100, but $10K-25K, depending on the extent of the infringement. The company is CADTRAK of Sunnyvale, CA. They made a workstation aimed at chemical plant design, but have since scrapped that, in favor of porting the software to PCs using TECMAR graphic boards (which probably infringe on the same patent). Supposedly the president was seen at Siggraph, talking to various vendors. Asking how their hardware did this or that. Depending on the answer, he would give them the info on this patent, and hit them up later for money. Here is a brief list of the items covered under patent #4197590, granted in 1980, and an addendum #31200, granted in 1983. The descriptions given to me was terse, I'll expand a little on some that may not be obvious. * Use of hardware to XOR cursors non-destructively * Hardware for generation of the shape and location of a cursor. * Hardware image zoom by pixel replication * Pixel replication zoom by a scale factor * Hardware for smooth panning (for apparent animation) * Hardware grid patterns mixed with the video * A method of modulating the video (after color table lookup) for generation of matte backgrounds (this I didn't fully understand) * Double Buffering image memory * The simultaneous display of two separate image buffers on one video display. * Read skip control: selectively skipping the readout of portions of image memory. From what I think I know about the CADTRAK workstation, my personal opinion is that it did a lot of unique and innovative things, e.g. simultaneously displaying two parts of the image buffer and panning each independently. It seems as though while they were patenting the innovative features, they went for the works. I'm almost more disappointed in the patent office for granting this (in 1980 even!) than with CADTRAC for taking advantage of it. Any other comments I'll reserve for those on the net. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The difference between America and England is, the English think 100 miles is long distance and Americans think 100 years is a long time. Name: Robert Skinner Snail: Saber Technology, 2381 Bering Drive, San Jose, California 95131 AT&T: (408) 945-0518, or 945-9600 (mesg. only) UUCP: ...ihnp4!saber!skinner
greg@harvard.ARPA (Greg) (11/16/85)
In article <1858@saber.UUCP> skinner@saber.UUCP (Robert Skinner) writes: >The company is CADTRAK of Sunnyvale, CA.... ... >Here is a brief list of the items covered under patent #4197590, granted >in 1980, and an addendum #31200, granted in 1983. The descriptions >given to me was terse, I'll expand a little on some that may not be >obvious. > >* Use of hardware to XOR cursors non-destructively >* Hardware for generation of the shape and location of a cursor. >* Hardware image zoom by pixel replication >* Pixel replication zoom by a scale factor >* Hardware for smooth panning (for apparent animation) >* Hardware grid patterns mixed with the video ... These jokers might as well have patented the wheel. XOR'ing a cursor is neither a crime nor an innovation. Nor is panning-by-hardware, for that matter... -- gregregreg
ken@turtlevax.UUCP (Ken Turkowski) (11/16/85)
History: CADTRAK of Sunnyvale is asking big bucks to license the
technology that allows non-destructive display of a cursor by means of
exclusive-or. They have a patent dated around 1980.
Computer science has been around for a long time, longer than computer
graphics. It seems to me that there is something written somewhere
about the unique property of the exclusive-OR function that if it is
applied twice with the same source and destination, then the
destination is the same as the original.
What difference does it make that the data in this case controls an
electron beam at a specific spatial location? Would this same patent,
for example, cover the use of exclusive-or for scrambling speech
signals? The technology is the same, it is just applied to a different
problem.
--
Ken Turkowski @ CIMLINC (formerly CADLINC), Menlo Park, CA
UUCP: {amd,decwrl,hplabs,seismo,spar}!turtlevax!ken
ARPA: turtlevax!ken@DECWRL.DEC.COMark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (11/17/85)
Ken Turkowski says: > History: CADTRAK of Sunnyvale is asking big bucks to license the > technology that allows non-destructive display of a cursor by means of > exclusive-or. They have a patent dated around 1980. > Computer science has been around for a long time, longer than computer > graphics. It seems to me that there is something written somewhere > about the unique property of the exclusive-OR function that if it is > applied twice with the same source and destination, then the > destination is the same as the original. > What difference does it make that the data in this case controls an > electron beam at a specific spatial location? Would this same patent, > for example, cover the use of exclusive-or for scrambling speech > signals? The technology is the same, it is just applied to a different > problem. In general, it IS possible to patent a novel combination of several ideas that have been around for a while as long as the combination is not obvious.
mwherman@watcgl.UUCP (Michael W. Herman) (11/18/85)
I'm probably giving awaya good (unpatented) idea by saying that I hope someone comes up with an excellent exclusive-or/destructive cursor t-shirt for SIGGRAPH '86 this coming summer. [ People should note that the 1986 conference is almost a month later than usual - August 18-22, in Dallas. ]
jeff@qubix.UUCP (Jeff Bulf) (11/18/85)
> Ken Turkowski @ CIMLINC (formerly CADLINC), Menlo Park, CA > It seems to me that there is something written somewhere > about the unique property of the exclusive-OR function that if it is > applied twice with the same source and destination, then the > destination is the same as the original. Point well taken, Ken. I learned this in my first encounter with boolean algebra at Berkeley in 1967. I gathered that the technique went back as far as Boole. (1800's?) > Would this same patent, > for example, cover the use of exclusive-or for scrambling speech > signals? The technology is the same, it is just applied to a different > problem. Although I agree strongly with Ken here, I am stumped on the next question. How do we get legal relief from this apparent scam? Does anybody have both the legal and technical background to formulate a case? -- Dr Memory ...{amd,ihnp4}!qubix!jeff
julian@osu-eddie.UUCP (Julian Gomez) (11/19/85)
> Ken Turkowski says: > > > History: CADTRAK of Sunnyvale is asking big bucks to license the > > technology that allows non-destructive display of a cursor by means of > > exclusive-or. They have a patent dated around 1980. > > ... > > In general, it IS possible to patent a novel combination of several ideas > that have been around for a while as long as the combination is > not obvious. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR BIT OPERATION *** A couple of months ago I pointed out that the whole process was obvious and well known by 1980 (I'd even used it in a couple of paint programs). The earliest use of XOR in a frame buffer cursor that I know of was in 1976 on the E&S frame buffer at UofU. By 1980 I had met a number of people who were doing the same thing and weren't making any secret of it. -- "If Chaos himself sat umpire, what better could he do?" Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez Computer Graphics Research Group, The Ohio State University {ucbvax,decvax}!cbosg!osu-eddie!julian