Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 48 of 48

Thread: Will Floating Point Textures Be Merged Into Mesa?

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,036

    Default

    However, i am glad to hear that this was at least discussed privately, and not just silently ignored by everyone like it seemed.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    I really don't understand why "our lawyers say we can't do this or we'll get sued because of (A), (B), and (C)" would have to be kept private. Why can't those reasons be discussed publicly? Is it so people can plead ignorance later? Because if it was sent over email/irc or whatever, there's probably a copy floating around somewhere that a lawyer could find later.

    I just don't understand why no one can sue the x264 project but Mesa is worried. You'll never convince me that the MPEG-LA is less interested in suing people than the people who own the graphics patents are.
    The graphics patents people have already sued and mostly won (maybe a draw) against AMD, The OpenGL extension specifically declares the patent and that open source implementations are not exempt. Just because one group operates in one way doesn't have any bearing on how another totally unrelated group will operate in any shape or form. Its not a precedent if the MPEG-LA don't sue you.

    Lawyers aren't that big on making public quotes, also there are number of companies involved in Mesa who have different lawyers and different opinions.

    Though I am hoping we can get some traction on this with this effort, keeping company lawyers attention can also be a difficult task.

    Dave.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,036

    Default RAND licensing terms

    I did see something that SGI was willing to license the patent on RAND terms, is that still the case with the new patent owners? Or is their definition of RAND just still way to expensive for Linux companies?

    I'm wondering if perhaps this could be handled in a similar way to the mp3 and other codecs that are sold on linux, where users could buy a licensed version of mesa if they wanted to.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by airlied View Post
    there is a major cabal stopping Mesa from reaching GL3 for business interests, its called Graphics Properties Holdings, they hold the SGI floating texture patent.

    I didn't give my word, I gave a possible explanation, You might want to read up on Occam razor, or maybe you are probably trying to create the opposite "idiot's razor", pick the stupidest explanation a sub-100 IQ person could come up with and believe it.

    Dave.
    they hold a legal patent on a given algorithm , you or anyone do have the perfectly legal option to write another algorithm giving the same bit exact input/output functionality and release that as OSS do you not

  5. #45
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by popper View Post
    they hole a patent on a given algorithm , you or anyone do have the perfectly legal option to write another algorithm giving the same input/output functionality and release that as OSS do you not
    No.

    I could explain the basics of what a patent is, and how the problem is a hw/sw system so you can't just replace or avoid the patent, or even explain how those people who believe living in Europe protects from these sort of patents (not a sw patent, sw combined with hw).

    Dave.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Have a good day.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by airlied View Post
    No.

    I could explain the basics of what a patent is, and how the problem is a hw/sw system so you can't just replace or avoid the patent, or even explain how those people who believe living in Europe protects from these sort of patents (not a sw patent, sw combined with hw).

    Dave.
    Please do (I'm not trying to be provocative).

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Your confusing patents with copyrights. They are very different.

    Patents cover a method/concept/idea. What ends up happenning is that it is illegal for to do X with Y. If you do "X with Y" your violating the patent.

    Whether or not you know it's illegal is irrelevant. Whether or not you know it's patented is irrelevant. Whether or not you invented it on your own and just happen to accidentally do something that was patented it is irrelevant. Whether or not you copied the idea is irrrelevant.

    Patents give the patent holder a monopoly on anybody doing anything with "X with Y". If you do "X with Y" you are liable to get sued.

    The reason lawyers tell you to discuss things in private is because if you say the wrong thing then it can totally fuck you. If you use the wrong phrase or reveil you know something you shouldn't know or anything like that... even accidentally... even if that is not what you really meant, but it sounds like it could be... it can still fuck you.


    IP is not fair, it's not to prevent people from 'stealing ideas'. It abritrary and extremely complicated and unfair..

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Have a good day.
    Posts
    678

    Default

    That reminds me of somebody I met who was in the process of getting a patent accepted. Basically I only got to know that it had to do with ways of evacuating people from buildings...and nothing else. This person and his colleagues were extremely wary of saying anything that could remotely put them in a bad position with regards to their application. Months later somebody came to give a talk about IP and patents and reiterated the same idea: do really shut your mouth up.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •