MS Buys (Some) SGI Patents

FatRatBastard writes "The Reg. is reporting that Microsoft has purchased the rights to most of SGI's 3D patents. Speculation from the Reg hacks is that MS may want the patents more for crushing OpenGL support than for technology they're building inhouse." Well, crush is strong - but it would give them more leverage with some hardware vendors for sure.

Comments

'crush' OpenGL

[nsanit]

I know the original posting said it was strong language, but there are just too many games out there that use OpenGL that are too popular to be crushed.

Besides, OpenGL is goverened by a board of companies, not just SGI.

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[T.E.D.]

Besides, OpenGL is goverened by a board of companies, not just SGI.

It doesn't matter who "governs" OpenGL. All Microsoft has to do to kill it now is refuse to license their 3D patents to any hardware vendor who chooses to make OpenGL drivers instead of DirectX.

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[MarkusQ]

T.E.D.: It doesn't matter who "governs" OpenGL. All Microsoft has to do to kill it now is refuse to license their 3D patents to any hardware vendor who chooses to make OpenGL drivers instead of DirectX.

Or even in addition to DirectX.

-- MarkusQ

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[grammar nazi]

1. Company A wants to improve their product.

2. Company A legally learns/purchases/adapts technologies from rival product.

3. As a result, company A's product is improved.

This sounds fair to me. It even sounds *gasp* competitive.

The grammar nazi doesn't have any problems with it. If Microsoft adapted many of the good technologies from Apple, Linux, etc. then I would probably start using it more often.

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[penguinboy]

Step 3 has yet to happen, in this case. Of course one can't guarantee that Microsoft is trying to be anti-competitive, but given their history it's remains a possibility that can't be ruled out ahead of time.

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[SirSlud]

3. As a result, company A's product is improved.

Often, these types of purchases are made just to run the newly bought foobar through the shredder. It's the easiest and most reliable way to win a competition. (On that note, I won't argue that its not competative .. just, in a bad way.) MS doesn't have much to gain from OpenGL, IMHO, and since the XBox, and Windows, etc is all DirectX'ed, I suspect they'd be more interested in running OpenGL into the ground than learning anything from it, incorperating it into DirectX, and then letting OpenGL go out in the middle of a large sunny grassy field so that they will meet on the market battlefield again. I mean really, I can't think of many companies that would do that in the first place, but MS would be the last company to do it.

>If Microsoft adapted many of the good technologies ..

What if they just bought every software company, and released a product that incorperated all the good technologies? We'd all die, cause what you like is different than what I like, so I don't mind having a choice and choosing differently than you. The notion of a 'right' solution is BS, so ensuring that fish A doesn't nibble on every other fish in the pond is critical to maintaining consumer confidence and a healthy economic ecosystem (nevermind encouraging competition and innovation). It'd be a very incestuous market with not much new to show for itself very often ...

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[SirSlud]

It'd be a very incestuous market with not much new to show for itself very often ...

... which is to say that the MS in that scenario would never invent anything, and that all the other fish would want to stop living, cause everytime they had a new idea, it'd just be bought from them and bastardized for the masses. People don't do stuff just for money; people want to see their innovative babies through to customer satisfaction. If ideas keep getting snatched up and implemented by the guy who likes to ejaculate his products prematurely on the market, it ruins it for everyone. This is why I don't support the scenario you described as a particularly healthy one in the long term.

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[Glock27]

It doesn't matter who "governs" OpenGL. All Microsoft has to do to kill it now is refuse to license their 3D patents to any hardware vendor who chooses to make OpenGL drivers instead of DirectX.

No one makes OpenGL drivers "instead of" DirectX. Every card I'm aware of supports both. I assure you, if Microsoft were to try something so predatory, there would be a huge backlash. (Microsoft does sit on the OpenGL ARB by the way.) I wouldn't worry about the future of OpenGL unless viable alternatives are found for both Linux (Unix) and Macintosh. I find that highly unlikely.

My guess is this is more aimed at leverage versus NVIDIA, Microsoft's Xbox chip supplier.

299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[Gaijin42]

SGI had that power as well. They chose to sell that power to microsoft. They were not forced. Just because you like SGI's policies better than Microsoft's policies does not invalidate the right of ownership. (Assuming for the argument, that the patents in question are legitimate non-trivial patents)

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[Zeinfeld]

It doesn't matter who "governs" OpenGL. All Microsoft has to do to kill it now is refuse to license their 3D patents to any hardware vendor who chooses to make OpenGL drivers instead of DirectX.

Microsoft does not have a history of using software patents to block rivals. Unlike Apple for example who used a copyright theory to block other companies attempts to use the Xerox-Parc GUI interface. Apple failed to intimidate Microsoft, but they broke Atari whose GEM O/S had a far better user interface as well as multi-tasking.

Using blocking patents is not a logical strategy for Microsoft. In the first place it might well involve an anti-trust violation, particularly now that the courts have rulled that Microsoft is a monopoly. Most companies can refuse to grant patent licenses on whatever grounds they like, monopolies are considerably more restricted. The main strategic reason not to use patents as blocking tactics is that there is little point when you have 95% of a market.

The only patent I can think of offhand that MSFT uses in a blocking fashion is the Kerberos extension patent. They make sure that people know that the technology is patented however.

I can see Microsoft using the patents in several ways. One would be simply to stop someone else buying them and launching a suit. Patent suits are cheap to file and expensive to defend. Another reason is simply to have ammo to fire back if they were sued by a competitor.

Probably the best reason for Microsoft to buy the patents however is simply for advertising, to project itself as a market leader in the 3D space as the successor to SGI. Another reason might be to enhance future XBOX versions (although chances are that Microsoft Sony and Nintendo will come to some reciprocal licensing deal).

Incidentally if SGI is selling the patent portfolio I doubt that a sale of their other assets can be far behind. It is pretty much their crown jewels.

The restrictions that MSFT might well make on open source use of technology they own the patents to would be requiring reciprocal licenses and prohibiting what they call viral licenses. The reciprocal license issue is necessary simply to maintain the 'defensive' aspect of the patent. RMS will get real tweaked about prohibiting viral licenses, but so what?

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[Mr_Matt]

It's not so much that Microsoft has the right to purchase these patents as to what Microsoft intends to do with them, now that they own them. It's still too early to tell, of course - even putting aside my own perspective as a "Linux Zealot (TM)" it wouldn't be fair to assume that Microsoft will necessarily Do The Wrong Thing. What worries people (and me) is Microsoft's track record.

You're absolutely right - SGI had the same power to lord OpenGL over the masses, and they have sold that power. What is troublesome is the fact that SGI let OpenGL live, and Microsoft may not.

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[Mr Thinly Sliced]

> Incidentally if SGI is selling the patent portfolio I doubt that a sale of their other
> assets can be far behind. It is pretty much their crown jewels.

My guess is that this isn't the crown jewels they've let go - remember Fahrenheit? I bet this sale is all the co-developed technologies that came out of that (deadly) partnership.

And I bet SGI is saying 'good riddance' too!

Mr Thinly Sliced

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[TWR]

Apple failed to intimidate Microsoft, but they broke Atari whose GEM O/S had a far better user interface as well as multi-tasking.

Bullshit.

Read http://www.seasip.demon.co.uk/Gem/History/gem1.htm l. It outlines why Apple sued Atari over GEM/1. Basically, they just copied many interface features from the original Mac: disks on the desktop, trash on the desktop, even down to how icons and the toolbar were shaded. Apple didn't "break" Atari; they demanded Atari change these blatant interface rip-offs, and Atari did. After all of this was settled, there were GEM/2, GEM/3, GEM/4, GEM/5 and later versions under different names. Hardly sounds like "broken" to me.

-jon

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[TWR]

And let me correct myself: Digital Research wrote GEM, not Atari. The Atari ST and the IBM PC could both run GEM, though.

-jon

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[iomud]

Microsoft needs more competitive products? Who are they competing with again?

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[David Gould]

Just because you like SGI's policies better than Microsoft's policies does not invalidate the right of ownership

No, that doesn't invalidate it, assuming you believe that the "right of ownership" of knowledge was ever valid in the first place. However, if you've believed all along that the very concept that it's possible in any sense to "own" knowledge, information, and ideas was bad, dangerous, and destructive, then this is just one more reason why.

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[Gaijin42]

If SGI sold those rights to Microsoft, with full knowledge of what MS may do with them, then SGI is no better than MS.

They wanted money, the just let MS do the dirty work in exchange for the money. :)

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[Master Bait]

I think you've been reading too much Ayn Rand!

1. Company A wants to improve their product.
1. Company A wants more profits. (real world)

2. Company A legally learns/purchases/adapts technologies from rival product.
2. Company buys rival company or company's product. They have virtually unlimited assets to do this because they are a monopoly (real world).

3. As a result, company A's product is improved.
2. Company A discontinues rival company's product. Company A's product gains total market share, even though it is inferior (real world).

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[MrResistor]

One thing about MS' track record is that they do have a history of having their own products compete with themselves and letting the market decide which one survives. Argueably, DirectX has already beaten OpenGL, so maybe that's a moot point.

As a patent, though, this could be very bad if MS decides it wants OpenGL to die, since patents cover ALL implementations of the concept covered in the patent. As such, MS essentially owns mesa, and that makes me very uncomfortable.

One can always hope, though, for legal relief. Perhaps this will be the case that kills software patents?

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[pmz]

...there are just too many games out there that use OpenGL that are too popular to be crushed.

It isn't just games. There is a lot of genuine industry-driving software out there based on OpenGL. For example, high-end CAD systems on UNIX workstations (that have OpenGL-accelerated graphics hardware).

If Microsoft denied a company, such as Sun Microsystems or IBM, the right to manufacture or distribute OpenGL graphics systems to run OpenGL-based CAD software, then, overnight, a whole enormous aspect of the world economy--mechanical design and manufaturing--needs to be done on Windows-based workstations. This really really really sucks.

If Microsoft builds a world where I have to do software development, mechanical design, everything using Microsoft software and hardware, then that's a world where I will quit my career and become a monk. Having nothing is better than having Microsoft-everything.

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[davechen]

Well, SGI's stock hit a low of 31 cents last fall, so I'm guessing they desperately needed the money to stay alive. They sold off the only thing of any value that they had left. For the past couple of years its been a question of whether or not SGI could manage to stay alive. Even though the stock has rebounded to $2.61, I'm still not optimistic.

dave

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[Zeinfeld]

Apple did not STEAL anything from Parc. They PURCHASED the rights to Parc's ideas to augment their existing GUI. Parc made money on the deal. Of course it was nothing compared to what it was worth, but...

However they got it the fact remains Apple had no right to claim control over the use of the technology by others. Nor for that matter did Xerox since they never took out the patents.

The whole Apple IP strategy was FUD from the start, using copyright rather than a patent to attempt to protect a design. But they managed to scare off the software houses from supporting the Atari machine.

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[Bob Uhl]

Apple stole the basic ideas from Parc [sic].

You lie, or are mistaken. Apple bought the right to talk to the Xerox PARC engineers. The use of the GUI was on the up-and-up. The GEM lawsuit was essentially a trade-dress suit--which is fair. So was the Windows one, which was slightly less fair, but still, I think, within the realm of decent acts. Microsoft had previously indicated acceptance of Apple's claims--surely then it should have been held to the deals it made.

There are technical reasons that Macs went in for co-operative multi-tasking, unprotected memory &c. They don't make a lot of sense nowadays, but they were once compelling.

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[csbruce]

The only patent I can think of offhand that MSFT uses in a blocking fashion is the Kerberos extension patent. They make sure that people know that the technology is patented however.

I thought that the Kerberos embrace-and-extend attack was protected as trade secret distributed with a non-disclosure EULA [as part of an open-source-developer-contaimination strategy]. No patents involved.

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[spitzak]

GEM definately did copy the style of the Apple interface, including the appearance of the icons on the desktop and the title bars and resize handle of the windows. The Star did not have window borders (other than a 1-pixel line) and the icons were different with very few diagonal lines, and did not have a menu bar at the top.

To the other poster who said there were technical reasons Apple did not do multitasking, that would appear to be false, as the Lisa already did (cooperative) multitasking, and so did GEM and several DOS clones, and Unix-like systems, all on hardware commonly available then. Memory protection and true time slicing multitasking was available for only a slightly greater price such as was in workstations or in the MicroVax. The lack of Multitasking in the Mac was probably one of the biggest mistakes they did, otherwise I think they would have wiped Unix and Windows off the desktop.

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[TheMMaster]

I doubt very much that Microsoft would go to SGI, say "We'd like to buy OpenGL to destroy it, how much do you want for it?" Does that seem unlikely to you as well?
no, but if microsoft comes to your house and says "We want to buy openGL from you" wouldn't your first reaction be "why" and not "how much"
As much as I love SGI, I think they know what microsoft wants to do with GL, but for the moment I don't think SGI will let GL crash and burn, I suspect Microsoft wants the migh-end 3D modeling stations that still largely run *IX...

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[ImaLamer]

If Microsoft adapted many of the good technologies from Apple, Linux, etc. then I would probably start using it more often.


Ok, then go get XP! Recycle bin? "Built-in support for high-performance multiprocessor systems." "A reliable foundation you can count on - keeps your computer up and running when you need it most." "Remote Desktop - remotely access your Windows XP Professional PC, from another Windows PC, so you can work with all of your data and applications while away from your office." "Internet Connection Firewall - automatically shields your PC from unauthorized access when you're on the Internet." "Encrypting File System - protects sensitive data in files that are stored on disk using the NTFS file system." "Access Control - restrict access to selected files, applications, and other resources." "Group Policy - simplifies the administration of groups of users or computers." "Multi-lingual User Interface (MUI) add-on - change the user interface language to get localized dialog boxes, menus, help files, dictionaries, and proofing tools etc." Hell, there is even multi-user support! Even an 'administrator' account!

How about when they come up with something on their own... use the products.

Oh, don't forget:

4. Company B goes out of business

5. Customers loose rights to technology C

6. Company A is the only product in town.

*Italic quotes are from MS themselves

Re:'crush' OpenGL

[Zeinfeld]

I thought that the Kerberos embrace-and-extend attack was protected as trade secret distributed with a non-disclosure EULA [as part of an open-source-developer-contaimination strategy]. No patents involved.

There is a clickwrap agreement on the document that states that the mechanism is IP of Microsoft. I asked one of the engineers why they didn't use a patent, they said they had and did I want to license it.

First SoftImage, now SGI

[Stavr0]

Looks like MS wants to muscle in ILM's territory ...

Re:First SoftImage, now SGI

[gamgee5273]

I'm not saying that I agree with your conjecture, but George Lucas against Bill Gates? I pick Lucas, hands down. ILM has a history of innovation - Star Wars wouldn't have existed without it. MS doesn't seem to be angling for ILM (if this is about high-end 3D applications as opposed to games) as it is trying to stop Mac OS X from gaining a handhold in the industry via Pixar and Disney.

Re:First SoftImage, now SGI

[Proteus Child]

Looks like MS wants to muscle in ILM's territory ...

There's a mental image - sitting in the audience watching episode II and the screen suddenly turns bright blue in the middle of a fighter battle...

Re:First SoftImage, now SGI

[gamgee5273]

Well, I think you might want to look at where Jobs has been pointing Pixar. Eventually you'll see Macs in there - he said as much even three years ago. Now, a truly interesting fight would be for a Pixar takeover of Apple (or vice versa) vs. an MS move into digital film editing/making. People keep pushing for Apple to buy SGI - can you imagine the power of an IRIX-strengthened OS X? More than likely a pipedream, but still a cool idea...

pushing directx?

[oo7tushar]

I know that directx has improved greatly over the years making it much nicer and easier to use. Does anybody know if they're porting it to Linux?

WINE supports it, but are they going to modify so that it can be used like glut and opengl in X apps?

Re:pushing directx?

[scott1853]

Yes, MS is working very hard on creating software to support rival operating systems so that they can create a competitive marketplace.

Re:pushing directx?

[sql*kitten]

Yes, MS is working very hard on creating software to support rival operating systems

Office for Macintosh, anyone?

Disagree with The Register

[Marx_Mrvelous]

I don't think that MS owning these patents will really help microsoft "crush" OpenGL. They're doing that already with DirectX.

I have to admit, the one thing MS does very well is a fast development cycle. DirectX is a very mature, feature-rich 3d API. Everyone supports it already. The only way OpenGL can compete is to attain strong developers, maintain a good ease-of-programming and give game deisgners and card venders a solid reason to support it.

Re:Disagree with The Register

[scott1853]

Whoa big fella.

"Fast development cycle"

You do realize that equates to "we don't need QA", also "don't bother implementing the last 500 features on that list", and don't forget "don't waste time writing good documentation".

Re:Disagree with The Register

[jtdubs]

OpenGL 2.0 is due out "shortly." If you've followed it's deveopment much or read any of the proposed specs that 3dfx has released than you would probably feel differently.

Yes, DirectX has a fast development cycle. This also implies that they release new APIs frequently and force code migration.

OpenGL is far more mature as evidenced that even though no new OpenGL spec has come out for years it is still just as feature-rich as Direct3D.

With OpenGL 2.0 having amazing support for pixel and fragment shaders and a entire reworking of the transformation pipeline, OpenGL will be able to PORTABLY do absolutley everything D3D can do now, and will be able to do for the next 5 years.

Justin Dubs

Re:Disagree with The Register

[MtViewGuy]

I remember the good old days when DirectX 3.0 was a major disaster for everyone involved--a lot of display drivers wouldn't work with DirectX 3.

Fortunately, once Microsoft got to DirectX 5.0 things were way better, with much more hardware support. Indeed, today's DirectX 8.1 is a very powerful and mature API for sound and graphics in general, and is well-liked by many developers.

IMHO, what Linux really needs is the equivalent of DirectX. I believe there are several Open Source development projects that is aimed specifically for better multimedia in Linux that uses DirectX-like API's.

Re:Disagree with The Register

[BitwizeGHC]

With OpenGL 2.0 having amazing support for pixel and fragment shaders and a entire reworking of the transformation pipeline, OpenGL will be able to PORTABLY do absolutley everything D3D can do now, and will be able to do for the next 5 years.

Not if Microsoft owns and refuses to license the patents!

Microsoft has had its heart set on migrating the 3D market -- all of it, not just games -- to Direct3D. The Fahrenheit project was a collaboration with SGI to do precisely this: it essentially swallowed up OpenGL as a "legacy layer" on top of a New, Improved Direct3D. Microsoft has the money, the business clout, and now that SGI has bowed out of the partnership and gotten cozy with the Linux crowd, the motive to take the market by force on its own if need be. Must be nice to be a monopoly.

Re:Disagree with The Register

[jtdubs]

Yeah. Sorry. Typo. It's been a long day, I knew it started with a 3d and the brain said 3dfx. Nostalgia I suppose.

Justin Dubs

Embrace, not crush

[Chocky2]

They won't want to "crush" opengl, too big a market. This will provide a lot a leverage in that market, then they just "embrace and extend" the standards a little bit. Not like they've done that before!

Does SGI even own OpenGL??

[lukegalea1234]

Does SGI even own OpenGL??
It's an open standard.. isn't that what the OPEN stands for?

Re:Does SGI even own OpenGL??

[homer_ca]

No, but they own patents to many features of the OpenGL standard. Just like how Frauenhofer owns many patents on MPEG audio.

Only the first step.

[Rothfuss]

I believe this is just the first step in a larger attempt by Microsoft to buy the entire 3rd Dimension.

I'm really going to hate having to pay them royalties when I'm using it.

-Rothfuss

Re:Only the first step.

[gmhowell]

I'll move to flatland. I figure I'll at least be a square. Maybe a pentagon.

Re:Only the first step.

[pyros]

I can just see MS asking SGI about the thrid dimension....

SGI: okay, take an ordinary square
MS: slow down there egghead.

Re:Only the first step.

[JabberWokky]

I'll move to flatland. I figure I'll at least be a square. Maybe a pentagon.

Be a square. Otherwise you run the risk of having little flatland planes flown into you.

obConcept: In flatland, three fixed broadcast antennas can perform "GPS". But do you need "line of sight"? Are all EM waves polarized? Ahhh... no... not the "Physics in Flatland" Nightmares again. --
Evan "I wanna be a line segment" E.

John Carmack on Direct 3D

[green pizza]

http://www.bluesnews.com/archives/carmack122396.ht ml

Now, I know D3D has undergone many changes since then, but without a 100% about-face, I doubt they could fix the major coding issues.

Re:John Carmack on Direct 3D

[Matey-O]

Dude, John's .plan was dated 199_6_!

Re:John Carmack on Direct 3D

[dzym]

How about this one.

A log can change in 5 years, eh?

I mean, god forbid that Microsoft actually improves their products?

Re:John Carmack on Direct 3D

[alanh]

Check out some of Mr Carmack's
more recent thoughts on Direct3d and OpenGL.

Re:John Carmack on Direct 3D

[John Whitley]

Simplified Account of Reality Ahead

Actually, D3D, as of DirectX 8, has pretty much been gutted and is now nearly a line for line translation from OpenGL. The D3D design has been asymptotically converging towards OpenGL's design in many ways. Unsurprising, as the MS architects and developers were continually faced with 1) the same problems that OpenGL had been designed to address, and 2) a graphics developer market whose major experience has been OpenGL.

Re:John Carmack on Direct 3D

[SuiteSisterMary]

Mr. Carmack's current thoughts. Emphasis mine.

D3D is clunky, etc Not really true anymore. MS made large strides with each release, and DX8 can't be called a lousy API anymore. One can argue various points, but they are minor points. Anti-Microsoft forces have a bad habit of focusing on early problems, and not tracking the improvements that have been made in current versions. My rant of five years ago doesn't apply to the world of today.

Not Just Paranoia

[MasterBlaster]

The last paragraph sums it up:

Microsoft isn't in the PC hardware business, and it's unlikely that the patents will change its technical strategy. But they do add significantly to its bargaining position with hardware vendors, giving Redmond important new leverage. Rival APIs, principally OpenGL, are kept alive through the support of graphics hardware vendors. And for a hardware partner, avoiding a lawsuit, or gaining a contract to work on future versions of Xbox, may well outweigh the advantages from continuing to support OpenGL.

I guess Microsoft trying to crush open source isn't just paranoia after all.

Re:Not Just Paranoia

[Faramir]

Au contraire... there is no reason to think that The Register is not just paranoid like the rest of us. Now, obviously, this is a pretty decent analysis of a possible use for these patents. But still these are vague threats to the industry that may have been cooked up to spread FUD about MS.

There is enough actual reason to fear and doubt MS out there already. Before adding potential reasons, and spreading them as actual, can we have a reasonable discussion about them? Or is it enough for someone to make generic statements about "avoiding lawsuits?"

Personally, I would like to know on what grounds anyone would be worried about lawsuits. I won't deny the possible existence of such grounds; I just want to actually hear what they are instead of speculate blindly.

Would someone be kind enough to post a basic description of OpenGL's relationship to SGI's technologies, and to the company itself. Was/is SGI involved directly in the formulation of OpenGL? Could MS have purchased patents that OpenGL relies upon, patents that do not have "free" alternative implementations? Is there a GL that OpenGL is compatible too (like OpenSSH to SSH)?

Re:Not Just Paranoia

[Glock27]

And for a hardware partner, avoiding a lawsuit, or gaining a contract to work on future versions of Xbox, may well outweigh the advantages from continuing to support OpenGL.

NVIDIA is the graphics (and glue chipset) supplier for Xbox. It is also now the sole supplier of graphics chips for desktop Macs. Apple is solidly behind OpenGL as it's strategic 3D API (as is the entire high performance 3D graphics world, for that matter). I'd be willing to place a large wager that NVIDIA (which has strong SGI roots) will not abandon OpenGL.

One last thought - I think Microsoft would be very ill advised to try to charge more for the use of those patents than SGI was...and that cost should already be part of current hardware prices.

299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!

Re:Not Just Paranoia

[Glock27]

The powerbook G4 has an ATi radeon. The current imac (not the new one) has an ATi rage 128 pro. The ibook has an ATi rage mobility.

Now, what were you saying?

Er, I was saying that now (as in it changed recently) NVIDIA is the sole supplier of desktop Mac graphics chips. I was not referring to discontinued iMacs or notebooks. There was an press release circulated by NVIDIA to that effect not long ago.

I hope that clears things up... ;-)

299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!

Re:Not Just Paranoia

[Glock27]

Well, since the new imac is not on the market yet, I would consider the "old" imac to still be the "current" imac.

I think they're shipping now from Apple's online store.

Regardless, that has nothing to do with who the current chip supplier is. ATI hasn't sold any desktop graphics chips to Apple for awhile now. It's all been NVIDIA (actually it's all on 3rd party OEM AGP 4x graphics boards, except for iMac). They're going into new machines that still need to go through the distribution pipeline.

299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!

Re:Not Just Paranoia

[Glock27]

Just to finish off this thread, I found the same release on Yahoo I saw elsewhere:

NVIDIA Graphics Technology Now Standard in All Apple Desktops

299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!

How about they buy the "sgi" logo...

[green pizza]

... so Silicon Graphics can go back to the "cube" logo!

remember Java

[oo7tushar]

Remember how MS made their own Java VM and modified the language to suit themselves?

Perhaps they're aiming for MS OpenGL (MS OpenJelly, lube up and aim for penetration)

(please don't troll me)

Re:remember Java

[Snowfox]

Remember how MS made their own Java VM and modified the language to suit themselves?

Perhaps they're aiming for MS OpenGL (MS OpenJelly, lube up and aim for penetration)

People have short memories.

Remember Fahrenheit, the SGI/Microsoft/etc initiative for the next OpenGL plus scene graph?

MS walked all over the specs, doing strange and troublesome things to it, yet only ever had two people actively "working" on it, all while racing to get Direct3D out the door before OpenGL (or later Fahrenheit) could get a hold in the Windows development community.

As I hear it second-hand from an ex-SGI guy, SGI was pouring incredible resources into Fahrenheit, while MS was essentially blocking progress, while waving the promise of MS-acceptance in order to prevent their dropping MS' involvement.

When they realized they were burning cash and talent to go nowhere fast, SGI eventually gave up and said "Stick with OpenGL and Inventor or whatever -- we don't care anymore."

Re:remember Java

[Snowfox]

So, SGI fell for the oldest (Microsoft) trick in the book. All they had to do was read the traderags to figure out what was going on. When MS released DirectX 7 or something, they said "this is Fahrenheit!" -- SGI could have done something similar, but instead they are still diddling around with OpenGL 2.0 talkshops.

I find it remarkable that someone could poke fun at OpenGL's standard committees while posting a website predominately aimed at the UNIX community.

Zing! ;)

On the Look-Out

[Alien54]

Now that's an area that the three men in a boat - the proposed MS compliance body - might care to examine. We'll be watching.

Personally, I think that each state should have at least one rep looking into MS

It is a matter of trust. In this case, past performance is an indicator of future results.

Re:On the Look-Out

[CmdrPinkTaco]

Who watches the watchers?

Re:On the Look-Out

[Alien54]

oh, and we'd better keep and eye on the FDA too...

or else we could get all the psychs to make us all trustworthy

"Let me apply this shock one more time just to be sure"

Might bode ill for OpenGL based projects?

[starseeker]

What does this mean for the use of OpenGL in open source? Are we going to have to start developing our own open source replacement for OpenGL now?

Re:Might bode ill for OpenGL based projects?

[SpinyNorman]

Open source OpenGL already exists - it's called Mesa, and given that SGI have not fought it (in fact AFAIK they've been quite friendly towards it), I doubt Microsoft would be able to... IANAL but I beleive if you don't defend your rights you lose them.. although I hope Microsoft's buying the patent rights doesn't given them a legal angle to pursue Mesa if they chose to.

Re:Might bode ill for OpenGL based projects?

[haruharaharu]

Open source OpenGL already exists - it's called Mesa

Last I heard, Mesa wasn't claiming OpenGL compatibility specifically to avoid legal hassles

Re:Might bode ill for OpenGL based projects?

[mwa]

Maybe not. If all they are doing is emulating the "command syntax or state machine" of OpenGL and the underlying implementation does not infringe upon the patent (which I have to think is the case, or SGI probably would have objected), then wouldn't this simply be a method of maintaining "compatibility"? If so, I think the anti-trust implications of trying to stomp on the compatibility layer would be fairlyl risky for MS.

Re:Might bode ill for OpenGL based projects?

[Quarters]

If you don't defend your trademark rights you will lose them. You can sit on your patents up until n-1 days before they expire and then go after anyone/everyone who has been violating them.

Given MS' past example

[Rev.LoveJoy]

Tell me why, again, crush is too strong a word?

-- RLJ

DirectX is actually good now...

[MaestroSartori]

Its a lot better in many ways than OpenGL (at least I think so). Its certainly powerful and easy to code for. It was a load of poo up til at least DX6, but now its surprisingly nice and object-oriented. They are of course targetted at completely different uses: D3D is generally Retained Mode, whereas OpenGL is generally Immediate Mode. I can't be bothered explaining what those mean, so go look in Google, but it does mean that DX is probably better for games, whereas OGL is better for most other things.

Re:DirectX is actually good now...

[MisterBlister]

How did this get modded as insightful?

I happen to think D3D is better than OpenGL currently, if you're doing Windows-only game programming.

However, D3D isn't 'generally Retained Mode'. D3D dropped its retained mode support (which nobody used anyway, and D3D has always had an immediate mode API) a while ago, back at DX5 or so. Of course, you're free to create your own scene-graph/retained mode API over the current immediate mode API if you like, but it no longer includes that API in the standard SDK.

D3D used to have D3DRM, OpenGL has Inventor, both are/were retained mode APIs on top of the immediate mode APIs.

Also, its extremely silly to claim that retained mode means it is better for games? How many games can you name that use a retained mode API?

Re:DirectX is actually good now...

[geekd]

That's not the point. the point is that OpenGL is cross platform.

I don't think I'll be seeing DirectX on my linux box anytime soon.

Re:DirectX is actually good now...

[Glock27]

Its [DirectX] a lot better in many ways than OpenGL (at least I think so). Its certainly powerful and easy to code for. It was a load of poo up til at least DX6, but now its surprisingly nice and object-oriented. They are of course targetted at completely different uses: D3D is generally Retained Mode, whereas OpenGL is generally Immediate Mode. I can't be bothered explaining what those mean, so go look in Google, but it does mean that DX is probably better for games, whereas OGL is better for most other things.

Last I looked at it, almost every serious game was done in Direct3D immediate mode, and most recent changes to the API are there.

OpenGL is perhaps only better for games in that it is a thin C layer on top of the hardware rather than a thicker COM layer. One can always write OO scene graph frameworks on top of OpenGL like Performer.

Most importantly, though, is that every computing platform other than Windows that supports hardware 3D acceleration does so through OpenGL. I expect it to outlive Direct3D. :-)

299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!

Re:DirectX is actually good now...

[gorilla]

The world is much bigger than just games. Visualization of data is a huge market, and something I think is going to expand as time goes on. If you're trying to analyze your sales for 10,000 stores around the world then you're going to have very different goals than if you're trying to write the next Quake.

Re:DirectX is actually good now...

[dpilot]

Whaddya mean, isn't cross-platform?

DirectX runs on Win95, Win98, Win98SE, WinME, Win2K, WinXP, and is presumably source-compatible with XBox. Sounds like all the *desired and significant* platforms are covered.

The MS definition of cross-platform.

(Sarcasm, if you can't tell)

Re:DirectX is actually good now...

[praedor]

Irrelevant. OpenGL is OPEN and can work on any platform/operating system. DirectX and its progeny are M$ only.

If not for OpenGL, there would be no DirectX/Direct3D. It is the only competitor to microsnot in this area. Killing it is bad no matter what you think of DirectX/Direct3d.

OpenGL is in continual evolution. It is gaining features just as Direct3d has. It has fallen behind in a few areas in recent history but the new features being brought into it bring the two libs to parity. M$ can't stand this, and the fact that most game developers STILL support OpenGL, so they wish to eliminate it. Bad no matter how you slice it.

Re:DirectX is actually good now...

[CaseyB]

D3D is generally Retained Mode, whereas OpenGL is generally Immediate Mode. I can't be bothered explaining what those mean, so go look in Google

You first, because you obviously have no clue what you're talking about. No one ever used the DX retained mode.

Re:OpenGL 2

[scott1853]

Who says OpenGL can't already take on DirectX.

As long as Carmack keeps using it, that's a major score right there. The latest Nascar game also has support for both DirectX and OpenGL, and OpenGL is recommended for GeForce cards. Any good developer can create a layer of abstraction that will allow them to easily work in either environment.

As fas as version 2.0 goes, I think they're still taking suggestions on what people want added.

Re:More than gaming to graphics

[Mr Thinly Sliced]

> The only way OpenGL can compete is to attain
> strong developers, maintain a good ease-of-
> programming and give game deisgners and card
> venders a solid reason to support it.
OpenGL aint just about the games man. If your developing a visualisation system of oil field sensor data, do you think you really use DirectX?

Nope, you go to the real guns, SGI.

Microsoft have a huge way to go before they grab that share of the market. For one thing, there is a whole heap of legacy apps in these scientific visualisation areas that rely on OpenGL backwards compatibility.

Mr Thinly Sliced

Software patents suck

[jmd!]

For more information on how much software patents suck, be sure to check out the League for Programming Freedom.

Crush is strong.

[WasterDave]

Well, crush is strong

No, crush is usual.

Dave

Here's an old USENET post I found

[qurob]

From: Allen Akin (akin@tuolumne.asd.sgi.com)
Subject: Re: Licensing of OpenGL to Microsoft
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.apps.softimage, comp.sys.sgi.graphics, comp.graphics.api.opengl, comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.graphics, comp.graphics.raytracing, comp.graphics.rendering.misc, comp.graphics.rendering.raytracing
View this article only
Date: 1996/02/21

SGI licenses OpenGL to anyone, including all of its competitors in the
workstation market. The reasoning goes something like this:

1. SGI builds great workstations, but what really makes them
useful (and thus makes people willing to buy them) is
high-performance full-featured 3D graphics and imaging
applications.

2. Applications developers can't afford to support a large number
of graphics APIs. The development and maintenance costs are
too high, and since feature sets vary from API to API, it's
difficult for an application to take advantage of all the
desirable features of multiple APIs.

3. If a single graphics API is supported on a sufficiently wide
variety of machines (including SGI's), and if that API is fast
and full-featured, then applications developers can
concentrate their limited resources on that API and do a good
job of using it effectively.

4. The result is a larger number of good-quality 3D graphics
applications that are capable of running on SGI hardware.
This makes it easier for SGI to sell workstations. In the
long run it also increases the number of potential SGI
customers by making it easier for applications developers to
create products for new markets.

5. Of course, SGI's competitors that adopt OpenGL also gain
access to a larger pool of 3D applications. However, this
doesn't make a lot of difference to SGI, because we have to
work to remain competitive in any case. It's important to
understand this! *The competition would have become more
intense even if OpenGL didn't exist.* Licensing OpenGL creates
no significant new risks for SGI, but it does create new
opportunities.

Hmmmm.

[jd]

1. Microsoft is found a monopoly, with excessive power, and a habit of abusing it.

2. SGI, who were working on OpenGL 2.0, suddenly sell Microsoft a bunch of patents, the money from which may be keeping SGI alive.

3. Microsoft may not be into hardware, per se, but you can bet that they'll either price the patented stuff out of existance, or try to mould it so that compliant hardware only works with Microsoft products.

If you don't like this -- speak up!

[Derek]

If you really think (as I do) that this is an indication that MS intends to extend its monopoly by squeezing out competing standards and technology, then make your voice heard!

According to the US law you still have until Jan 28th to comment on the court's final judgement.

I recommend you take a minute and make sure the US justice department hears your concern.

-Derek

Re:If you don't like this -- speak up!

[JasonAsbahr]

Honorables,

It has come to my attention that Microsoft has recently acquired fundamental patents for 3D graphics technology and techniques from SGI. This is a dangerous situation, as it grants Microsoft significant leverage over the independent 3D hardware manufacturers who are currently supporting the only rival to Microsoft's Direct3D graphics API, OpenGL.

Microsoft has in the past worked to delay and distract advances in 3D graphics technology, such as in the abortive "Fahrenheit" plan with SGI in the 1990s. During that period, SGI was transitioning from selling Unix-only workstations to begin selling workstations running Microsoft's Windows NT. At the same time, OpenGL was gaining on Microsoft's Direct3D in terms of features, hardware support, and developer support. If SGI wanted to sell NT boxes, SGI would have to agree to the Fahrenheit plan. The perfectly timed Fahrenheit deal slowed that advance of OpenGL by, among other things, reducing SGI's active promotion of it, and allowed Microsoft's Direct3D to gain a strong lead.

Yet OpenGL support still survived due to the interest of software developers and the support of third party 3D hardware manufacturers. This latest move by Microsoft to acquire core 3D technology patents would finish the hatchet job, granting Microsoft the power to force third party 3D hardware manufacturers to drop support for OpenGL, and ultimately stifle competition and innovation in the marketplace.

Please do not let this come to pass.

Thank you,

Jason Asbahr
Game Developer

Re:If you don't like this -- speak up!

[Performer Guy]

Good post, here is some related background on Microsoft's suppression of OpenGL.

http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/3d.html

Re:If you don't like this -- speak up!

[Graymalkin]

Honorables,

I read an article written by the quality journalists at the Register and I know from experience that I should believe everything they have said. I would like yo suggest you read the Register for all of your news because it is the finest newspaper in all the world. I must tidy up this letter so I can go pee my pants and fume because I think Microsoft is taking over the world when in reality the Register doesn't say fucking shit about Microsoft buying anything more than "rights" to some of SGI's IP which doesn't specify if they bought patents of licenses.

Thank you,

Jason Asbahr
Game Developer

Why so ominous?

[Da VinMan]

I mean, there's probably a really good reason why MS is buying the patents. Like, perhaps they're sick of paying licensing fees to SGI for those patents?

Duh!

Other game hardware

[Stultsinator]

They could use these patents to gain royalties on games meant for other platforms, not just ones made for the Xbox or Windows. Say, if Sony were to incorporate some 3D texturing method in the PS2 API that MS just bought.

My 2 cents

[vulgarDPS]

What it looks like to me is that they are trying to get all the NVidia stuff. NVidia has a deal with SGI to view and write alot stuff that interfaces with SGI machines and OpenGL in order to rape the graphics possibilities. This is also why the linux driver for NVidia cards is half open source and half closed source. If MS can take that capability out of NVidia cards by gobbling up all the patents and not allowing NVidia to do this anymore then theoretically they could force NVidia (one of the biggest manufacturers of video card) to pull out of raping OpenGL for graphics and instead use DirectX. Then MS would be justified in stopping its support of GL.

Mesa

[Fembot]

Does this therefore mean that microsoft can sue Brian Paul (the Mesa Author) for every penny he has and more if they decide to?

Not good

[barole]

Microsoft does not want OpenGL on windows because it means that applications aren't tied to the windows platform. Unfortunately for them, they can't say this openly - people need OpenGL and many will move to other platforms to get it.

So, Microsoft says all the right things - that they support OpenGL and include it as part of windows. However, it is a bit like their half-hearted posix mode. Win2k does not included any hardware acceleration for Opengl (according to the register). Also, OpenGL on win32 is stuck at an old version (1.1? or 1.0) and extensions and more recent (eg 1.2) features must be used via their ugly extension mechanism. Microsoft backed out of their agreement with SGI on Fahrenheit - burning SGI in the process.

Re:Not good

[Performer Guy]

No, they want and need OpenGL on Windows. They just want it to stagnate. What they dearly want is all developers to write to the Direct3D API. This way they get to have their cake and eat it. They can run 'legacy' OpenGL applications and attract applications from other platforms (mainly *nix and mainly professional applications), but applications written to the Windows platform are difficult to port elsewhere and are effectively tied to their operating system.

Re:What are the implications?

[SirSlud]

The XBox runs on Direct X, OpenGL's direct competition and nemesis. I mean, we've gotten to the point where even MS can go around saying, "Yeah, we did this so we can kick some ass and make some money for our stock holders.", which is true, legal, and widely accepted.

I don't think sinister is the word - it's standard operating procedure for MS, along with lots of other large corperations. The Real beauty of it is that MS also has an alibi - they kept SGI in business (maybe), thus ensuring they still have competitors. MS is to the market now what the US is to the world - they are taking things over via a dependance on existance. That is to say, they can keep companies alive and in buiness as a kind of bribe. This is so they cannot be accussed of being so successfully [anti-competative/innovative] (take your pick, doesn't matter for the sake of argument) as to have killed off all of their competitors!

Open source drivers vid card drivers don't matter.

[Odinson]

All of a sudden "just trust them" dosn't sound like a good idea when it comes to NVidea.

Mark my words, if things keep going the way they are , NVidea will become the Troll Tech everyone originally feared. The GPL has more power for consumers then many want you to see.

It was nice knowing you high end 3d on Linux. You will be missed.

Re:Selling Patents

[Codifex Maximus]

I think a patent is an intangible asset that can be sold.

Owning the patents gives you control. Having a license just allows you the right to use the patented technology.

Big difference.

Did MS purchase a license, or the patents?

[Greg Lindahl]

There's nothing in the Register article that gives any proof that MS purchased anything other than a license for the patents, not the patents themselves.

So, as is often the case, this is probably much ado about nothing.

Re:Did MS purchase a license, or the patents?

[kcbrown]

The article says that SGI has "transferred" the patents to Microsoft. This implies that SGI sold Microsoft the patents themselves, not merely a license to use them.

Re:Did MS purchase a license, or the patents?

[Greg Lindahl]

There's nothing in the Register article that gives any evidence that SGI "transferred" the patents to Microsoft. The Register is not a credible source, and engages in fuzzy reporting at best.

Re:What are the implications?

[SirSlud]

kept SGI in business (maybe)

I'd just like to say that this is a grossly unqualified statement. If anyone can shed some light as to SGI's true financial situation, I'd be interested to know if MS could claim something along the lines of what I suggested above.

NVidia Driver Implications?

[BadBlood]

Weren't those SGI patents what kept Nvidia from open-sourcing their Linux drivers?

Now with Microsoft owning them, the chance of a fully open-source driver goes...up?...down?...stays the same????

Re:NVidia Driver Implications?

[glwtta]

Considering the whole XBox arrangement (i.e. pretty much the same technology as nVidia retail cards but in MS's hands) I'd say the chances are nil - regardless of who owns what patents. My uninformed opinion only, of course.

If you read past comments...

[GoofyBoy]

... you would have known that this was an issue before.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=25432&thresh ol d=0&commentsort=3&mode=thread&cid=2762096

Return to the glory years of 3D...

[Fourier]

Maybe we can convince NVidia to whip out the old Glide API. Woo-hoo! The return of 3dfx!

Re:Return to the glory years of 3D...

[denzo]

I know this is offtopic, but... I found this piece of information from the 3dfx (soon-to-be-deleted) Website:

Did you know NVIDIA GPUs are the graphics of choice for Half Life users? In a recent Valve Software survey, data captured from 35,488 Half Life user machines showed 67% of graphics were NVIDIA.

Emphasis mine. Sounds spooky.

Re:What are the implications?

[SirSlud]

Throw a packet sniffer down before the traffic hits microsoft.com, and I wonder how many you'll see per second ... ;)

Re:Who cares if they try

[dair]

It's one thing to render a couple megs of textures and low res models quickly. It's another to render 300mb of textures on a high res (100million polygons) object in realtime.

That doesn't have much to do with the API though - if you're pushing that much data around then your performance is going to come from hardware, not from calling glDrawElements vs DrawPrimitive. Although MS have a foot in the hardware door with the XBox, patents on hardware would be more valuable to someone like nVidia/ATI than MS.

You would need to know exactly which patents had been purchased to guess at their motives - the SECC filing just talks about "intellectual property rights", which may or may not mean patents (although the Reg seems to think so).

-dair (my guess would be it's just a reflex reaction: they saw something interesting on offer, and snapped them up to prevent someone else from doing so)

Re:Open source drivers vid card drivers don't matt

[Odinson]

It wouldn't be NVidia's fault of MS decided to stop licensing the APIs to them (or priced them out of existence). Or are you really going to blame NVidia on something caused by MS?"

I'm not blaming them entirely, to do so would be to blame them for Microsoft's dominance. I'm blame people who don't see that GPLed drivers will be used long after propriatary ones are orphaned.

Always use GPLed software for infrastructure. OS connection to your video card is infrastructure. I do blame NVidia for not seeing that "cicumstances beyond their control" might leave Linux running NVidia owners out in the cold. That qualifies as not caring on their part.

Along the same vein I wish Windows drivers were GPLed as well. I feel awfull for all those sysadmins who automaticly respond "I don't know, I'll contact Microsoft" to all questions.

Re:What are the implications?

[4of12]

The Real beauty of it is that MS also has an alibi - they kept SGI in business (maybe), thus ensuring they still have competitors.

You laugh, but it's true!

Remember several years back when Apple was on the ropes and MS bailed them out with $150M ?

You'll also recall that part of the deal included a provision for Apple to start distributing MS IE instead of Netscape Navigator, whose stock symbol has, umm, disappeared.

I think bailing Apple was absolutely critical for MS, since otherwise their market share would have shot up even more alarmingly close to 100% than it is already. It's easier to claim there are competitors when you have only 92% of the market compared to when you have 98% of the market:)

Taken to the extreme, it wouldn't be out of place for MS to buy or bail out a Linux based company either. I think that almost happened with Corel. My own paranoid view on that deal was that Corel developers might have been moving Wine along too quickly to suit MS and they had to throw some molasses into the machine.

Re:What are the implications?

[SirSlud]

Who said I was laughing man, I believe it! :)

Why?

[gnovos]

What I can't understand is how the SELLING of patents and copyrights is EVER a good thing. I can undersatnd that case for innovation and protecting people's ideas for a limited time, but when you allow those protections to be sold, they stop being used as devices to foster innovation, but as roadblocks.

Re:Why?

[glwtta]

does anyone, anywhere still think that patents are used to "foster innovation"? If so, then they are among the most gullible people on this planet.

Re:Didn't this happen a LONG time ago?

[Performer Guy]

No it didn't happen a long time ago. Microsoft bought a UK company called Rendermorphics for the D3D stuff.

The rest is just rumour, I can name about 6 times SGI was rumoured to be getting bought by someone. The Microsoft one was never credible. The most plausible rumour was when it looked like Sun were going to buy them.

At least...

[root_42]

...time will be gratis. Oh, darn! Now I've given them an idea.

Re:If you don't like this -- speak up![Fahrenheit]

[Thagg]

Interestingly, while several people speculated that Fahrenheit was intended to kill OpenGL, from what I can see it actually saved it. Fahrenheit encouraged Microsoft to not knife this particular baby long enough to allow a reasonably strong set of OpenGL boards to be produced.

Fairly quickly in the course of the Fahrenheit project, SGI realized that it would not be a good idea for Fahrenheit to actaully be released; because that really would mean the end of OpenGL. So, they dithered and delayed, rewrote and reimplemented, argued and agreed to disagree for a truly critical couple of years. That was long enough.

Eventually the charade could not be maintained any longer, and Fahrenheit disappeared. Up until the last day, though, SGI made every appearance of being totally committed to Fahrenheit -- it was on the front page of www.sgi.com until the day it was killed.

thad

What about GLide?

[Cutriss]

Don't laugh...honestly. If MS were to stifle off OpenGL, then NVIDIA would have a corner on the non-Microsoft-OS rendering market, since they own all the core assets to the only other viable multi-purpose rendering API out there.

Think about it. MS turns out the lights on OpenGL. No new hardware with OpenGL support under threat of contract lawsuit. NVIDIA ports GLide (Or finishes the port, rather) and is instantly the only supplier of non-DirectX consumer and professional level rendering equipment.

Expiration?

[damiam]

So when do the OpenGL patents expire? They must have already been around for quite a while.

Ownership, Right to Use, or Right to Enforce?

[Andy Dodd]

Agreed.

If they just have purchased the right to use (at the stated sum of $62.5 million, sounds like a Right to Use purchase to me.)

Right to Enforce or full ownership... That's a different story and is Bad News.

Yes, it is possible (I didn't realize this until recently) for someone to grant someone else the right to enforce a patent but retain ownership.

xfree86???

[vandan]

I did a search on this page to find xfree86, and did not find ONE mention.
How does this affect Mesa / xfree86-DRI?

NO MORE BOXEN!

[JCMay]

Boxes Boxes Boxes!

It was cute the first time, but that was long ago. Now it's just annoying.

Just because you learned the plural form of the name of a large beast of burden ends with "en" doesn't mean that all English nouns ending in "x" are pluralized that way.

You claim to be involved with post-secondary education. If you were, you'd realize that the word is "boxes," with an "S."

As far as corporations not needing 3D visualization, you must be ignororing whole segments of industry: petroleum, aerospace, and communications jump immediately to mind. Automotive and consumer products design is enhanced via use of 3D virtual prototyping. There's more to life than finance, food service and retail!