Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 73

Thread: The S3TC Patent Might Be Invalid

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,652

    Default The S3TC Patent Might Be Invalid

    Phoronix: The S3TC Patent Might Be Invalid

    Here's another interesting thing from XDC2011 Chicago... While talking with Intel's Ian Romanick after lunch about OpenGL 3.0 support for Mesa, he mentions that the S3TC patent is invalid (or he thinks so) and could soon be enabled in Mesa...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=OTkxMQ

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    5,411

    Default

    wow impressive! and now the floating point HDR graphic patent to and openGL3 is free to use LOL

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut,USA
    Posts
    983

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qaridarium View Post
    wow impressive! and now the floating point HDR graphic patent to and openGL3 is free to use LOL
    Yes, once the patent(s) in question are indeed proven invalid then its good to go. Would be good to see the floating point HDR one get shot down too. Not sure if there's a final ruling yet but we got to wait and see

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Russe, Bulgaria
    Posts
    543

    Default

    What does it mean that patents are invalid? Someone has used the technology before it was patented or what?
    Why GPU vendors didn't invalidated the patent in the first place, and preffered to pay license?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Because always is cheaper to pay royalties than engage a fight in a court to invalidate a patent.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden
    Posts
    429

    Default

    If this proves to be true, a huge (mental) blocker for the open-source graphics world has been removed! Finally the bikeshedding can stop

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Russe, Bulgaria
    Posts
    543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stargeizer View Post
    Because always is cheaper to pay royalties than engage a fight in a court to invalidate a patent.
    How pitty!

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stargeizer View Post
    Because always is cheaper to pay royalties than engage a fight in a court to invalidate a patent.
    It is sometimes worse. If you invalidate a patent, you incur some cost and your competitors don't but if you pay royalty, your competitors might have to patent royalty too since you established precedent and hence it might be a strategic move rather than purely a economical move to keep paying royalty for a patent you know might just be bogus. This is not unusual.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeepDayze View Post
    Yes, once the patent(s) in question are indeed proven invalid then its good to go. Would be good to see the floating point HDR one get shot down too. Not sure if there's a final ruling yet but we got to wait and see
    You can get HDR with an eye dropper and a clear oil. All it does is make it look like you have eye drops in or are taking drugs. I turn it off. Always.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,801

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hephasteus View Post
    You can get HDR with an eye dropper and a clear oil. All it does is make it look like you have eye drops in or are taking drugs. I turn it off. Always.
    You're wrong here. HDR is the natural way your eyes work. I think you're confusing HDR rendering with shaders that try to fake the "HDR-look" and are based on "bloom".

    You read more about true HDR rendering on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDR_rendering)

Posting Permissions

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