gessel@cs.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Mark Gessel) (10/26/90)
As I understand it, Pixar's patent on using stochastic processes to Anti-Alias
an image covers all forms of image generation, and all things one would want
to anti alias (space, time, depth of field, etc).
Every year, techniques for generating really cool pictures based on stochastic
sampling are published in the SIGGRAPH conference proceedings.
Does anybody know why?
That is, can anyone legally use these techniques before the patent runs out
(17 years from when it was issued, I think)? Has Pixar ever sued anyone? Since
it's research, can Pixar sue the people who do the research (I assume not).
It's that all these techniques are really nice. If I wanted to write and sell
a renderer, or write and sell movies that are generated with that renderer,
would I have to get a license from Pixar?
Any help would be greatly appreciated,
Dan
--
Internet: gessel@cs.swarthmore.edu
UUCP: {bpa,cbmvax}!swatsun!gesselshirley@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (peter shirley) (10/26/90)
gessel@cs.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Mark Gessel) writes: >As I understand it, Pixar's patent on using stochastic processes to Anti-Alias >an image covers all forms of image generation, and all things one would want >to anti alias (space, time, depth of field, etc). >Every year, techniques for generating really cool pictures based on stochastic >sampling are published in the SIGGRAPH conference proceedings. >Does anybody know why? I would assume that any such patent would NOT hold up... stochastic sampling is just a classic form of Monte Carlo integration known in fields other than Comp Graphics since the 1950s. Of course, given our courts, you never know! Can I patent applications of quicksort to application X? (Hey, nobody ever used it on X before!). pete shirley shirley@cs.indiana.edu
jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) (10/26/90)
In article <67527@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> shirley@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu (peter shirley) writes: >gessel@cs.swarthmore.edu (Daniel Mark Gessel) writes: > >>As I understand it, Pixar's patent on using stochastic processes to Anti-Alias >>an image covers all forms of image generation, and all things one would want >>to anti alias (space, time, depth of field, etc). > >>Every year, techniques for generating really cool pictures based on stochastic >>sampling are published in the SIGGRAPH conference proceedings. > >>Does anybody know why? > >I would assume that any such patent would NOT hold up... stochastic sampling >is just a classic form of Monte Carlo integration known in fields other >than Comp Graphics since the 1950s. Of course, given our courts, you >never know! Can I patent applications of quicksort to application X? >(Hey, nobody ever used it on X before!). > >pete shirley >shirley@cs.indiana.edu Hey, don't laugh...read the article in Nov 1990 issue of Dr. Dobbs Journal... The authors bring up an interesting patent infringement that X windows is worrying about...seems someone patented the use of XOR for non-destructive cursor movement...if you get a chance...READ THE ARTICLE!!! no area of computer science is safe... John Burton (jcburt@cs.wm.edu) (jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov)
news@heitis1.uucp (News Administrator) (10/30/90)
In article <1990Oct26.131122.2169@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov> jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) writes: > >Hey, don't laugh...read the article in Nov 1990 issue of Dr. Dobbs Journal... >The authors bring up an interesting patent infringement that X windows is >worrying about...seems someone patented the use of XOR for non-destructive >cursor movement...if you get a chance...READ THE ARTICLE!!! >no area of computer science is safe... > I just read the article. I don't understand what the real threat to X is. It should be possible for MIT to continue to use backing store and the exclusive-or cursor. Since they do not charge anyone for the sources, the royalties should be minimal ;-). If the X system is distributed with this capability, and a company wishes to develop and sell a server for X, they could not enable the code for backing-store, this will make it slower, but will only affect the systems which do not have a supplied server with the X system. Of course, the XOR cursor is gonna be a lot tougher to get around. brian
julian@riacs.edu (Julian E Gomez) (10/30/90)
In article <1990Oct26.131122.2169@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov> jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) writes:
" Hey, don't laugh...read the article in Nov 1990 issue of Dr. Dobbs Journal...
" The authors bring up an interesting patent infringement that X windows is
" worrying about...seems someone patented the use of XOR for non-destructive
" cursor movement...if you get a chance...READ THE ARTICLE!!!
" no area of computer science is safe...
What really pisses me off about this particular patent is that at the
time it was applied for the technique was common practice.
--
"We must grasp the bull by the tail, and look the matter squarely in the face!"
Julian "a tribble took it" Gomez julian@riacs.edujoe@proto.COM (Joe Huffman) (10/30/90)
In article <1990Oct29.203607.403@heitis1.uucp>, news@heitis1.uucp (News Administrator) writes: > In article <1990Oct26.131122.2169@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov> jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) writes: > > > >Hey, don't laugh...read the article in Nov 1990 issue of Dr. Dobbs Journal... > >The authors bring up an interesting patent infringement that X windows is > I just read the article. I don't understand what the real threat to X is. > It should be possible for MIT to continue to use backing store and the > exclusive-or cursor. Since they do not charge anyone for the sources, > the royalties should be minimal ;-). If the X system is distributed with A patent allow the holder to halt distribution of any type, free or otherwise. A patent is a legal monopoly. You can literal say that no one (within the domain of your patent) may possess, use, or sell the patented item. Even if the non-patent holder developed it first or independantly. Certain exemptions exist for safety critical items such as a navigational instrument that is normally used in a country not covered by the patent when that ship/plane/etc is brought into a country that does have the item patented. If it is not safety critical then the ship/plane/etc can be required to not use the item while in the country that has the item patented. Patents should not be allowed for software (IMHO). I have a patent (well actually a former employer owns it) for a hardware device and have considered applying for others (my own) for hardware. I think patents are probably a good thing for hardware but not software even though I do nothing but write software these days. -joe- -- joe@proto.com FAX: 208-263-8772
n8443916@unicorn.wwu.edu (John Gossman) (10/31/90)
In article <1990Oct29.203607.403@heitis1.uucp> news@heitis1.uucp (News Administrator) writes: >In article <1990Oct26.131122.2169@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov> jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) writes: >> >>Hey, don't laugh...read the article in Nov 1990 issue of Dr. Dobbs Journal... >>The authors bring up an interesting patent infringement that X windows is >the X system. Of course, the XOR cursor is gonna be a lot tougher to get >around. > > brian Unfortunately I have heard this story before. About three years ago AutoDesk decided to go public. Within days of the announcement, the XOR cursor patent guys filed suit against AutoDesk and eventually won. So Autodesk has paid them royalties ever since for a mathematical function. John Walker, the lawyer hating president of Autodesk, is said to have considered withdrawing the stock offering he was so infuriated. X may be safe just because these guys would be less likely to make money from MIT than from a corporation, but the various X vendors should watch it. // *************************************************************** // John Gossman SoftSource (206)676-0999 Phone WWU Math Dept. My employer stands behind all my opinions, except in public. // ************************************************************** //
trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo) (10/31/90)
joe@proto.COM (Joe Huffman) writes: >A patent allow the holder to halt distribution of any type, free or otherwise. >A patent is a legal monopoly. You can literal say that no one (within the >domain of your patent) may possess, use, or sell the patented item. Even if >the non-patent holder developed it first or independantly. [...] ^^^^^ That turns out not to be the case. If the non-patent holder can prove he invented the item first, that invalidates the current patent. A patent may only be held by the *first* inventor, not the fastest to the patent office. :-) >Patents should not be allowed for software (IMHO). I have a patent (well >actually a former employer owns it) for a hardware device and have >considered applying for others (my own) for hardware. I think patents are >probably a good thing for hardware but not software even though I do nothing >but write software these days. The problem with patents is that you have to defend them against *every* infringement or you could lose them. Unless you have very deep pockets, this may be too burdensome for an individual -- whether you're talking hardware *or* software. -- Tony Nardo, INET: trn@warper.jhuapl.edu, trn@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu Johns Hopkins Univ./APL UUCP: {backbone!}mimsy!aplcen!trn Quote(s) relocated to my finger .plans
aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul D. Crowley) (10/31/90)
n8443916@unicorn.wwu.edu (John Gossman) writes: > Unfortunately I have heard this story before. About three years >ago AutoDesk decided to go public. Within days of the announcement, the >XOR cursor patent guys filed suit against AutoDesk and eventually won. >So Autodesk has paid them royalties ever since for a mathematical function. I can't believe this is really true! Is there anything that can be done to overturn such a ludicrous ruling? Does anyone know if the same thing would hold in Britain? -- \/ o\ Paul Crowley aipdc@uk.ac.ed.castle /\__/ "Trust me, I know what I'm doing" - Sledge Hammer
mccool@dgp.toronto.edu (Michael McCool) (11/01/90)
>The problem with patents is that you have to defend them against *every* >infringement or you could lose them. Unless you have very deep pockets, this >may be too burdensome for an individual -- whether you're talking hardware >*or* software. >Tony Nardo, INET: trn@warper.jhuapl.edu, trn@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu Well, true, but with a patent I have heard that the burden of proof is on the "infringer". Patents are assumed valid unless shown otherwise, since they have to be applied for and are evaluated at the time of application. It is much harder to defend, say, a copyright since you "get" it automatically upon "fixing" your creation in media. So you have to prove to originated the work when you try to defend it. Michael McCool@dgp.toronto.edu
joe@proto.COM (Joe Huffman) (11/01/90)
In article <trn.657311439@warper.jhuapl.edu>, trn@warper.jhuapl.edu (Tony Nardo) writes: > joe@proto.COM (Joe Huffman) writes: > > >A patent allow the holder to halt distribution of any type, free or otherwise. > >A patent is a legal monopoly. You can literal say that no one (within the > >domain of your patent) may possess, use, or sell the patented item. Even if > >the non-patent holder developed it first or independantly. [...] > ^^^^^ > That turns out not to be the case. If the non-patent holder can prove he > invented the item first, that invalidates the current patent. According to Title 35, United States Code, section 102 this is not quite true... I quote: 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent. A person shall be entitled to a patent unless-- (a) the invention was known to be used by other in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or . . . (g) before the applicant's invention thereof the invention was made in this country by another who had not abandoned, suppressed, or concealed it. In determining priority of invention there shall be considered not only the respective dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, but also the reasonable diligence of one who was first to conceive and last to reduce to practice, from a time prior to conception by the other. End quote. This was as of July 1979. Things may have changed of course. But other references I have seen to indicate this was still true as of 1984. The way this was explained to me by a patent attorney was that if you don't make your invention available for "the good of the public" (via selling your product, or patenting it) then someone else can patent it as long as they did their work independant from you. Once they have the patent "... whoever without authority makes, uses, or sells any patented invention, within the United States during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent." See 35 U.S.C. 271 (a). You must reduce your invention to practice and make a public sale of it one year before they file the application to be assured of invalidating the other guys patent. If less than one year then it can go either way. > A patent may > only be held by the *first* inventor, not the fastest to the patent office. No so in Europe. First to patent office wins. I am not an attorney. If it's really important to you talk to someone that knows the current law and can interpret it as it applies to your circumstances. For further reference see also Professional Program Session Record 2 -- "Protecting and Exploiting Software Developments", Northcon/84, October 2-4, 1984, Seattle, WA. > The problem with patents is that you have to defend them against *every* > infringement or you could lose them. Unless you have very deep pockets, this > may be too burdensome for an individual -- whether you're talking hardware > *or* software. Agreed. Part of the reason why I write software these days instead of design hardware. Maybe I should go (way) back to farming... -- joe@proto.com FAX: 208-263-8772
graeme@labtam.labtam.oz (Graeme Gill) (11/01/90)
> In article <1990Oct26.131122.2169@abcfd20.larc.nasa.gov> jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) writes: > > I just read the article. I don't understand what the real threat to X is. > It should be possible for MIT to continue to use backing store and the > exclusive-or cursor. Since they do not charge anyone for the sources, > the royalties should be minimal ;-). If the X system is distributed with > this capability, and a company wishes to develop and sell a server for X, > they could not enable the code for backing-store, this will make it slower, > but will only affect the systems which do not have a supplied server with > the X system. Of course, the XOR cursor is gonna be a lot tougher to get > around. > > brian It is not true that X uses an Xor cursor. The basic X supported cursor actually overlays the screen graphics, this being done using overlay planes in hardware, or software cursor code that saves the underlying images so that they can be restored when the cursor moves. Some applications (i.e. window managers etc.) make use of an "Xor" cursor, but they do so by making use of one of the 16 boolean operations X supports, i.e. Xor or more usually invert. I have had a look at the Cadtrack claims and patents (and not being a patent lawyer, I found them rather difficult to follow), and in my opinion they should not be a worry for most X vendors. As I understand it, Cadtrack is claiming patents on hardware supported Xor, split screen, panning, double buffering, textured lines and areas. Since the MIT code is based on a dumb frame buffer, all the above operations are simulated in a more laborious way by software (rather than hardware) to achieve a similar visual result, so the Cadtrack patents are probably not being infringed. As well as the above points, I don't believe the Cadtrack patents should stand up to broad interpretations (i.e. patenting the Xor operation) because of the obviousness of the techniques, prior use, and the mathematical basis of logical operations between two boolean variables. It is really like claiming a patent on addition, when applied to calculating a number for display on a numeric display. Things like double buffering are also not very novel, as it is just another form of pipelining, a long established technique in digital systems. (Of course proving this legally needs luck and LOTS of money). The double buffering patent is an example of an obvious idea that any practitioner of the art would come up with when asked to solve the problem of smooth picture updates. The point is that it wasn't worth publishing or building anything to use this technique until memory prices became more reasonable. i.e. the reason nobody used this technique in the 50's and 60's wasn't that it was such a non-obvious idea, but that the technology simply wasn't available to make it practical. Many of the patents that are causing controversy seem to fall into this class. Another point about Cadtrack are that they have been very slow in following up potential infringements. At least one manufacturer has been shipping terminals worldwide for over 10 years that have made use of the Xor cursor technique, and it is only now that Cadtrack have done anything about it. I understand that this would not look good in the eyes of a court. i.e. they haven't vigorously pursued their claims. Graeme Gill Design Engineer Labtam I.S.D. Pty Ltd
nick@sunpix.east.sun.com (Nick England - Sun Visualization Products) (11/02/90)
In article <6949@castle.ed.ac.uk>, aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul D. Crowley) writes: > n8443916@unicorn.wwu.edu (John Gossman) writes: > > Unfortunately I have heard this story before. About three years > >ago AutoDesk decided to go public. Within days of the announcement, the > >XOR cursor patent guys filed suit against AutoDesk and eventually won. > >So Autodesk has paid them royalties ever since for a mathematical function. > > I can't believe this is really true! Is there anything that can be done > to overturn such a ludicrous ruling? > > Does anyone know if the same thing would hold in Britain? > -- > \/ o\ Paul Crowley aipdc@uk.ac.ed.castle > /\__/ "Trust me, I know what I'm doing" - Sledge Hammer Oh yes indeed, the insanity is not confined to these shores. In a very important and lengthy trial in Britain, Quantel's patents on paint systems were upheld in spite of tons of testimony about all the prior art - including code printed in Siggraph tutorials for example. Quantel is now aggresively seeking to put other paint system vendors out of the business with this decision. This is just the tip of a VERY ugly iceberg. just my opinion Nick England
nick@sunpix.east.sun.com (Nick England - Sun Visualization Products) (11/02/90)
In article <1462@proto.COM>, joe@proto.COM (Joe Huffman) writes: > > According to Title 35, United States Code, section 102 this is not quite > true... I quote: > > 102. Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right > to patent. > > A person shall be entitled to a patent unless-- > > (a) the invention was known to be used by other in this country, or > patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign > country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or From what I have seen in recent years (z-buffer,paint,XOR, other stupid patents) the Patent Office is looking only to see if the idea is already patented - they have pretty much ignored the general literature, SIGGRAPH, etc. as far as prior art goes. This has led to some long legal battles with the patent holders generally (unfortunately) prevailing. The result is that most places are now patenting anything and everything no matter how obvious or trivial or derivative, as a defensive matter. Sad, sad, sad. On the other hand, if I'd patented all the stuff that I had in the old Ikonas graphics display, I'd probably be trying to collect royalties and licenses too... just my opinion Nick England
paul@taniwha.UUCP (Paul Campbell) (11/02/90)
I've always thought that the XOR cursor patent was really hokey. Especially when you look at the history of the technique - it has been used by artists in their work for millenia .... however probably some of the best examples are by Seurat (he was painting pixels wasn't he :-) and some of the more modern more miminalist (especially the black and white) stuff. Paul -- Paul Campbell UUCP: ..!mtxinu!taniwha!paul AppleLink: CAMPBELL.P What most people don't realize is that those plastic cover slips that your 3 inch floppies come in are actually condoms for protecting your computer from harmfull computer viruses - practice safe computing ..... :-)