Creative Pressures id Software With Patents 339
Cryect writes "Earlier today it was announced by Creative that they would be adding in EAX 3D sound support to Doom 3, and that they had come to an 'agreement relating to Creative's patented shadowing technique [also known as Carmack's Reverse in some coding circles] and id's cutting-edge 3D graphics DOOM 3 engine.' This seemed somewhat suspicious, almost as if id was being pressured, and a quick email to John Carmack from Reverend @ Beyond3d got this reply: 'The patent situation well and truly sucks... It was tempting to take a stand and say that our products were never going to use any advanced Creative/3DLabs products because of their position on patenting gaming software algorithms, but that would only have hurt the users...' There's also some possible prior art [PPT link] to Creative Labs' patent, from a 1999 talk by Nvidia's Sim Dietrich."
Ugh, I hate software patents. (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not right. I understand the importance of patents outside of the software industry, I really do. I think that if someone comes up with a clever idea and makes a prototype and intends to sell said object, then they should have a grace period of how long they can be the only ones. I'm up for debate on how long this period should be, but still. In software this just does not happen. You have these companies that are entirely setup with a bunch of patents and they just sue other companies to make money. Talk about shaddy business.
Patent a way to click a button, or how a shadow is rendered, or something just as rediculous is wrong and should not be possible. It hurts the industry more then it helps anyone. It will be aweful to see the rest of the world pass us by because we are unable to innovate because of all the legal mess we have. We have no one to blame but ourselves though.
I hope all of this mess does not affect Doom 3 release date, and it is almost a shame ID did not stick it to Creative. It is nice to see a company care about the user for once to though.
Brendan
If Carmack won't take a stand, who will? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, if Mr. Carmack won't take a stand against evil software patents, I doubt anybody will, or will at least do so successfully.
Think about it. John Carmack has influence and money. People will continue to buy the games id makes, whether or not they use this patented technology. Sure, they might be slightly slower, but considering all the other optimizations id is famous for, it's unlikely anybody would notice.
If a free software project wanted to challenge a patent like this, it wouldn't stand a chance. With no money, it couldn't defend itself. From the other side, the companies that have more power than id simply don't care to take a stand on issues like this.
I can't help but feel that Mr. Carmack wimped out of this fight. Saying that it hurts gameply is just an easy out. Would people really have noticed?
Maybe it's not too late. Maybe if enough people speak up about this, either id will decide to reverse their decision, or Creative will back down and make their patent available royalty-free.
Dont worry! (Score:4, Insightful)
This because of different trade agreements where the US is a part (NAFTA, WTO, etc). (using trade as leverage). And also thanks to big companies doing massive lobbying for these kind of laws. We really dont have a good democracy anywhere in the world, since it is money = power.
I recommend everyone to see this movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/
Surprise? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is a press release ever NOT pleasant in tone? Of course it's pleasant; if id is being legally pursued by Creative they wouldn't print a press release saying, "Creative can blow." That kind of talk is saved for plan files, not press releases.
Not just software patents (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:If Carmack won't take a stand, who will? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ugh, I hate software patents. (Score:5, Insightful)
A more reasonable term should be adopted for software patents say more on the order of 2 or 3 years. A lot of money can be made in that time frame giving enough insentive to develop without taking too much from the people whom these patents affect.
The sad part is EAX sucks compared to Aureal (Score:2, Insightful)
Creative Labs sucks. Their sound cards have stability problems and EAX buring Aureal really pisses me off.
Ask Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
My own take: Not very. They're about the only game in town when it comes to fancy-pants gaming sound cards. The thing is that a fancy pants gaming soundcard is not very important to me. Don't get me wrong I'm a pretty big gamer, but who really wants a computer desk coverd with a dozen speakers and the attendant wires? I haven't had a creative soundcard since the early soundblaster days. Creative products apart from soundcards? They just re-badge other people's stuff. I'd consider the RIO mp-3 players, but rio isn't creative anymore, right? I haven't had anything from creative in years, and I haven't missed it. Even as a computer gamer. The $20-$30 econo soundboard has been fine for me for as long as I can remember. I think my 486 might have had a creative board. Maybe.
What do you guys think? When you're putting together a setup what do you think about when it comes to soundboards? Do you have to have the best one? How much do you usually spend? Do you really love the 3d sound? Have you GOTTA have the latest pimptastic creative soundboard for like $250? Some people need super awsome soundboards because they make computer music, but then the creative boards aren't the ones you want anyway, right?
While the fury of
Re:If Carmack won't take a stand, who will? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding me?
Gamers will spend $400 on a video card, more than it would cost to buy an Xbox AND a PS2, in hopes of getting an extra handful of fps in 3D Shooter Game #837.
Re:Future source code release. (Score:3, Insightful)
Caveat: I am not a lawyer; I am attempting to apply common sense to the dubious notion of a patent on a technique, on a particular algorithm. This is one reason why software patents are goofy (highly technical legal term) - traditionally, a patent applied to a particular implementation of an idea, not to the idea itself.
Re:Ugh, I hate software patents. (Score:5, Insightful)
Inventions are often hard, and really, if the invention is already out there, it's much cheaper to buy rather than re-invent, but if you put the effort into inventing parallel (or without any knowledge of) a patented invention, why should you not also get protection???
The consequences of two fundamental problems (Score:2, Insightful)
W. D. Hamilton wrote [geocities.com] of this sort of thing as being the down-fall of civilizations:
Re:Ugh, I hate software patents. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Ugh, I hate software patents. (Score:3, Insightful)
Those who can, do. Those who can't, patent.
"I don't have the technical skills necessary to make a product out of idea x, therefore I'll patent it, and make sure that nobody else can make a product eithter."
I think the comparaison was with the "dog in a manager" fable. Patents are for people who want to prevent others from creating things.
Re:If I was Carmack.... (Score:4, Insightful)
You'd have to check which card you're using, not just blindly screwing people who have a Creative chip hooked up to their PCI bus....
All in all, more problems than it solves.
John, just do it! (Score:5, Insightful)
Have to agree, I would love to see iD remove support for Creative soundcards, or at least offer enhanced sound support for any other brand. Maybe then the asshats over at CL will see what happens when you bite the hand that feeds.
I wonder which boardroom genius decided to threaten the company behind the most eagerly awaited game of all time, when game players are one of the biggest buyers of your products. Fuck Creative; I was looking to buy a new Audigy card this month, absolutely no chance now, I'm looking elsewhere...
Re:If I was Carmack.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Will Carmack change his mind about patents? (Score:1, Insightful)
This is a shock and a little bit scary to (Score:1, Insightful)
Regards,
Ray
I guess I could've been clearer... (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the most despicable abuse of patents is when the patent holder KNOWS of an ongoing infringement, but holds off on filing suit for years and years while people become dependent on the technology.
If the patent holder only had 2 years to act once they were aware of an infringement (as is the case in China) this problem would be solved.
Dirty little secrets (Score:3, Insightful)
This has become standard practice for technology companies over the past few years, since sometime in the nineties. Basically, large technology companies maintain a staff of researchers whose job it is to churn out patents related to their product -- not necessarily new or interesting technology, but to shotgun enough that at least some get through. They then cross-license with all other manufacturers in the arena that they are in. At that point, the patents stop having value for driving production of useful new technology, since any patent is simply immediately available to all competitors. Instead, they are solely used to prevent any new competitors from entering the arena -- they act as oligarchy maintainers. This means that the only competition each company has is the other existing companies in the arena -- as those are bought out or go out of business, the market is left more and more to the remaining players. It is an extremely damaging attack on free markets, and is a business practice that is now in widespread use. The hard drive companies (Seagate, IBM and friends) do it. The GPU companies (ATI, NVidia and friends) do it. The CPU manufacturers (AMD, Intel and friends) do it. As a result of this approach, most substantial improvements that could be used against a competitor are not patented, since this allows them to actually be useful competitive tools -- undermining the very reason for having patents in the first place.
Patents, in such situations, no longer serve their purpose at all -- the funding of the creation of useful new things. The only solution is really to eliminate software patents. I have yet to see particularly impressive research coming from such a situation -- I cannot see any reason to maintain the existence of software patents. I'd like to hear from *one* Slashdotter that does good research who is supported by patent royalties (or works in a lab and feels that their patents, rather than the existence of their work and the barriers established by time-to-reimplement, is where their primary value to their lab comes from).
you kids amaze me... (Score:3, Insightful)
but when it comes to patents, our beloved carmack should take a stand based on principle and
NOT SUPPORT HARDWARE?!?
heh. so no support for linux is heinous, but no support for everything is alright?
Re:Will Carmack change his mind about patents? (Score:3, Insightful)
So long as the original inventor has a product, its design, etc stored somewhere with a verifiable creat-date, it's prior art.
The only way a second-round 'inventor' could patent it and charge the original inventor fees, is if the original inventor hadn't invented his product yet, or shown it to anyone on a verifiable prior date.
Things like the described hypothetical in the GP Post do not happen.
Software patents are a Bad Idea, but they're not that bad.