Slashdot Mirror

ESRI does have some competition, just not a lot. You can find GIS shops that run Autodesk Map 3D (merged with autodesk topobase a while back) and Intergraph. Which of the 3 you use is largely dependent on your region. Intergraph is fairly popular outside the US. Autodesk tends to be more used in the western US, and ESRI is about everywhere else.

People in the plant design business have been suffering from offshoring and increasingly-automated data-centric design software.

Expensive, sophisticated, software run over the internet by people earning 1/10 to 1/3 "western" hourly rates means that as older, more experienced workers retire, they are not replaced (or at least not on a 1:1 basis).

Most of the problems with offshoring are miscommunication, time zones and cultural.

Tasks that were formerly performed by younger people entering the field are now done by the software (eg., cable routing, single-line diagrams). Offshoring and automation are great for cost reduction but this does not bode well for people looking to enter the discipline.

30 years ago you were lucky to have a display capable of 640x480 which is .3MP

There are two ways to think about this. In 1980, most personal computers had very low resolutions. The Apple II, for instance, had a resolution of 280×192 in HiRes mode. The IBM PC came out later (and even then, its graphics capabilities were nothing to write home about).

But if you had a graphics workstation, dual 1280 x 1280 displays were available. Of course, such a system might have cost tens of thousands of dollars.

You design things on a computer, right? It always amuses me when people who work on a computer for a living think that their exempt from knowing about computers because they have some other job title. Computers are complex, and they're directly relevant to most desk jobs - you're not more exempt from knowing about computers because there are "computer people" than you are exempt from knowing about reading & writing because there are "english people".

Hey, I like working with computers and consider myself to be more knowledgeable than many computer/software "support" people that try to "help" me when I have a problem. I dislike software that complicates my job by making things more difficult or complex to do. I'm usually the guy that explains to the CAD drafters what OpenGL is, how to configure ACAD and how to properly run 3D design review software (JetStream, SmartPlant Review, for example) so I'm not exactly blissfully ignorant of the technology.

Many people are fascinated just fiddling around with computers; I prefer them to actually accomplish something relevant to my work without a lot of needless fussing about.

The drag is that NASA also has a mandate to try to make money with the tools they develop. NASA scientists developed a great image analysis program called VISAR back in 1996 to clean up video for the Atlanta Olympic Park bombing. Since then, they've been trying to sell it to companies. To my knowledge, this has never appeared in a consumer-priced product - only in a $100k+ system to be sold to big police departments, the FBI/CIA and big casinos.

I can never justify the megabucks Intergraph system, nor can the hundreds of smaller police departments or sheriff's departments. The money that went into the NASA budget from Intergraph is a tiny amount compared to the value to the public at large of releasing this under an open source licence. If it was opened, Intergraph could still sell packaged systems (this still requires decent processor power) and support. But it could appear in free stand-alone tools, in video editing systems and in secutity systems.

Currently, a huge amount of security video that could be analyzed in this way is not, because of the cost. Making this free could save lives.

If they can get a large format for the paper it would be useful for design verification meetings. Where you can put a nice big piece of paper on the table and have people go through it, and update it as you like.

Sounds useful for engineering schematics or flowsheets as long as the original designers take part in the meetings. Often, these type of meetings are attended by managers (and sometimes clients) only and having a bunch of pointy-hairs "brainstorming" and dynamically changing flow diagrams is a bad idea.

People who are not involved and familiar with the detailed design should not be making changes in mid-project. Design visualization is great technology (say, 3D walkthroughs of process plants) but it has its limitations and drawbacks.

Apparently, Intergraph's SmartPlant Review (3D engineering model realtime viewing software) supports multi-CPUs but it runs OK on a single processor AMD 64. I wonder if it would run a lot faster at home on an older dual MP 2800.

Ok, I just did some research into these various claims, basically when Intel settled their claims with Intergraph they left their customers out in the cold. The settlement specifically gives Intergraph the right to sue any intel customer or distributor. When AMD settled they made it part of the settlement that all of their customers were covered by the settlement.
This can be verified Here

and Here

That is amazing. I'm never buying an intel processor again, nor producing any systems based on intel hardware ever again.

Ok, I just did some research into these various claims, basically when Intel settled their claims with Intergraph they left their customers out in the cold. The settlement specifically gives Intergraph the right to sue any intel customer or distributor. When AMD settled they made it part of the settlement that all of their customers were covered by the settlement.
This can be verified Here

and Here

That is amazing. I'm never buying an intel processor again, nor producing any systems based on intel hardware ever again.

IBM will not be next, as the entered into a cross-licensing agreement with Intergraph in 2003 which absolved IBM and Intergraph mutually of violating each other's patents. IBM also paid a bit of cash (like 10mil) this is all on their site Here

It seems that AMD has already paid Integraph for the clipper patents and according to the description of the case AMD vs. Integraph (January 15, 2004), AMD has settled and obtained a "resolution of all patent litigation between Intergraph and AMD and its customers." I think that Intel should have done the same for its customers but who knows, it is possible that the situation between them is much more complex.


For those of you interested:

AMD Vs. Intergraph
http://www.intergraph.com/ip/cases.asp?caseid=C04- 00236&Submen

On April 12, 2004, AMD agreed to settle its DJ action against Intergraph and to take a license to Intergraph's Clipper patents. Under the terms of this license, AMD paid Intergraph $10 million and will make additional cash payments equal to 2% of the AMD Computation Product Group's pre-tax operating profits, if any, for the 2005 through 2007 calendar years, subject to a limit of $5 million per year. The settlement provides a license to AMD and its customers for Intergraph's Clipper family of patents and provides for the resolution of all patent litigation between Intergraph and AMD and its customers.

Intergraph Patents all relate from their own custom unix architecture that they abandoned in the early 90s (suckered into windows/intel). Their first cases involved their claim that Intel was trying to strong arm them to get their IP... and I thought their claim was very valid. Unfortunately now they seem to have made a business unit that's sole purpose is to chase suspected patent violators. Some of their other products are quite useful (mapping and GIS) though, if overpriced and underhyped.

check out http://www.intergraph.com/ip/cases.aspfor more info on the cases

and

http://www.intergraph.com/ip/tech.asp for info on how a software company ended up with all these hardware patents in the first place.

Intergraph Patents all relate from their own custom unix architecture that they abandoned in the early 90s (suckered into windows/intel). Their first cases involved their claim that Intel was trying to strong arm them to get their IP... and I thought their claim was very valid. Unfortunately now they seem to have made a business unit that's sole purpose is to chase suspected patent violators. Some of their other products are quite useful (mapping and GIS) though, if overpriced and underhyped.

check out http://www.intergraph.com/ip/cases.aspfor more info on the cases

and

http://www.intergraph.com/ip/tech.asp for info on how a software company ended up with all these hardware patents in the first place.

Maybe not always.

I think it's the coupling with frivolous lawsuits that creates the problem, plus maybe include the US system of Punitive Damages for good measure.

Take the InterGraph case as an example. They probably has a legitimate case against Intel.

If the only way they could win that dispute was by issuing shares to a lawfirm would this be unreasonable?

If Yes, How do you propose smaller companies defend themsleves?

...like one with a crosshair attachment for clicking on specific points of a blueprintfor CAD input

We used to call them "digitizer pucks" or just "digitizers". They were used in conjunction with ~11"x17" digitizer tablets that had a clear plastic sheet protecting a printed-out icon menu system for commonly-used engineering symbols.

Some of the high-end, proprietary CAD systems such as PDS and PDMS (for piping design, that is) had much larger digitizing tablets, twin 21" monitors and were horrendously expensive. This was about 20 years ago.

I'm not "knower of all things CAD", but I think virtually all current CAD systems use onscreen menus (or for the customizers/fast finger guys, keyboard shortcuts).

You could place a "blueprint" on top of one of these and trace, but typically this was not the case.

Paul
Piping Design Central

The alternative is even more stifling.

The inventor - seeing that his invention could too easily be copied by a large multinational - decides not to risk money for nothing, but instead goes back to his real job, farming.

No invention. No innovation.

We see a lot of this kind of behavior in the software industry today. Microsoft has made such a business of stealing other people's useful ideas, there isn't much innovation left anymore - outside of the hundreds of freeware grad-student projects that makes up the backbone of Gnu/Open Source/Linux.

Now I am not defending the joke software patents have become either, where adding "...with a computer!" is considered "innovation" by our rubber stamp patent office. But some degree of protection is needed, including both a comment period and a looser pays system for claims.

Effectively the problem with patents is twofold:

1] It is too easy to get a bogus patent, with which you can bully people who don't have the legal resources to fight your ludicrous claim.

2] It is too easy for large companies to simply ignore small patents, knowing that judges are very reluctant to enforce the law against them (it's not just Microsoft that gets this kind of special treatment, Intel is famous for this).

By the way, looking at these test results, you might want to know why Intel didn't introduce this hyperthreading capability earlier. Unfortunately, there were legal reasons for the delay, where Intel was in a court battle with former workstation maker and current high-tech company Intergraph, where both companies claimed to have invented the technique. Intergraph prevailed in court, Intel settled, and now is allowed to use this innovation.

Intergraph and Intel are fighting over EPIC which is the foundation for IA-64 aka IPF (Itanium Processor Family).

They used to. They used to make a range of workstations, using a chip called the Clipper (no relation to the encryption chip). It got killed in the volume economics of Intel. Intergraph then started with a range of Intel workstations, and that business crashed and died, which Intergraph states was due in large part to Intel refusing engineering support in order to coerce them to hand over patent rights. Then they started suing. Intergraph has a long history of litigation with Intel. Been going on and off since 1997, this is just another round of "been there, done that".

here is the latest info i recieved today. Intergraph.com they hope to see Intel's actions in about a month from today.

No, no, no! You might try reading up on this case a little before you rant about how Intergraph is trying to tax successful companies and hurting the consumers. Let's see what Intergraph says on the matter.

Intergraph claims that after several years of mutually beneficial work, in 1996 Intel began making unreasonable demands for royalty-free rights to Intergraph patents already being used in Intel microprocessors. When Intergraph refused, Intel abused its monopoly power by engaging in a series of illegal coercive actions intended to force Intergraph to give Intel access to the patents.

Clearly Intergraph and Intel actually did work together in the past. This is not a case where Intergraph patented lots and lots of processor-related ideas in the hopes that some bigger company would unknowingly implement them, whereupon they would smack them with lawsuit. The patents in question were not submarine patents.

Why take Intergraph's word for it? Well, look at the chronology of events. Intel tells Intergraph "we like your designs, give us royalty-free access to the patents." Intergraph refuses. Intel implements them anyhow. Intergraph sues. Intel asks the judge to dismiss the lawsuit, claiming it is obvious that Intergraph gave them access to the patents. The judge sides with Intergraph and rejects Intel's argument that they had a license for implementing those patents.

At no point did Intel try to show prior art. At no point has Intel claimed that the patents were trivial and should not have been granted. On the contrary, Intel fully understood the usefulness of the patents and implemented them in its newer processors. The only thing they had a problem with was paying royalties to Intergraph. They decided that they could get away with not doing so, that they were a bigger company and could throw their weight around and force Intergraph to concede.

Moreover, Intergraph also sued Intel under the provisions of the Sherman Antitrust Act for acting like a monopoly. Thus far that particular legal approach has amounted to very little, because the courts have said that Intergraph is not a direct competitor with Intel and is thus unable to sue under antitrust laws, but that does not change the point that the courts saw very real merit in Intergraph's allegations of abuse of monopoly power.

Why is it that one monopoly (Microsoft) is execrated whenever it engages in predatory business practices, but when Intel does something equally bullying and unfair, people decry Intergraph for picking on Intel?

And, from the USPTO itself: US 5794003 and US 5560028

And, for future reference: search the USPTO

And, from the USPTO itself: US 5794003 and US 5560028

And, for future reference: search the USPTO

Have a look at the source of the patent claims:
Intergraph

It has extensive information about this lawsuit and a previous one, including legal docs, tech docs and some flash presentations for the technically impaired.

Intergraph's patented PIC technology permits multiple processor operations to occur simultaneously, thereby significantly increasing processor performance. We believe that these patents are fundamental to parallel instruction computing and are specifically embodied in Intel's IA-64 architecture.

...(acc. to reports now circulating) Intergraph has thrown in the towel. No more PC's --no workstatiuons, no servers.

This press release (it's also on Intergraph's Web site, but the version there appears to be infested with non-ISO-8859/1 Windows characters) says that they will "Exit the PC and generic server business, which suffered irreparable harm from Intel's actions.", but that they'll "Strengthen the high-end workstation and graphics accelerator businesses by seeking partners with complementary technology and sales channels for Intergraph Computer Systems' ViZual Computing and Intense3D units.", although I don't know whether the bit about "Focus[sing] on Software and Services" means they'll eventually sell the hardware business off to a partner.