Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Claims IP Rights on Portions of OpenGL
An anonymous reader writes "Minutes of the latest OpenGL ARB meeting reveal that Microsoft is claiming IP over the vertex and fragment extensions, both critical for exposing the capabilities of modern graphics hardware. The minutes also include an update on the progress of OpenGL 2.0." The question is, what does this mean for Linux -- how will Microsoft exercise their "rights"?
1 update pending
Would you like to install MSClosedGL 1.0?
MARIJUANA, SHROOMS, X: ONLINE?! - E
yup
Is it too much to ask Micro$oft to realize what they are doing... perhaps I must say.. byte my arse.. and stick totally with Linuxes.
(1st sig) If this were a snappy sig, you'd be reading it right now. (2nd sig) I'm a karma whore. >Insert FUD here
Of course and they have the "right". They bought a whole lot of IP from SGI a few months ago.5 6&mode=thread&tid=152
Check it out here:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/16/18242
the more times the word Microsoft appears in front of your eyes, the bigger the smil gets on their PR dept faces.. Slashdot is probably one of Microsofts biggest PR machines. Remember, there is no bad publicity..
And soon MS will claim rights for SMB.
Pinky: What are we tonight Bill? Bill G.: Same thing we do every night Pinky! Try to take over the World! ---- Still trying to figure out how to use NetSaint.
Good. Now swallow.
Microsoft believes they have patent rights relating to the ARB_vertex_program extension. They did not contribute to the extension, but are trying to be upfront about it.
I have been pwned because my
It's an ARB requirement for any participant to state that they might have IP involved in a particular feature or extension. Try checking out previous ARB minutes where nVidia, ATI, and other companies have made statements about their own IP and possible conflicts. This is a non-issue.
Think on it. If OpenGL falls, DirectX rules all. That's it, that's all there is for gaming, and you might as well start installing Win XP now, after you've checked your license fifteen times to be absolutely certain it's real.
;)
Ah, what am I saying, this is the US! We just use smoke and mirrors to make it *look* like we punish predatory corporations and illegal tactics.
I wonder if this has anything to do with the IP (patents, designs, etc) Microsoft recently bought from Silicon Graphics, Inc (SGI)...
I doubt they'll really care too much about Linux OpenGL (for now) because quite honestly it's not necessary to attack it on that front. That would be a little too obviously vindictive, even for Microsoft. I think the more likely conclusion is that they'll use it to leverage their stranglehold on the DirectX/Windows combo to make it not only the standard, but the only option. Once gaming on Windows is restricted to DirectX, then OpenGL will survive solely on Linux (if it survives at all).
As if it weren't bad enough with Microsoft owning the #1 gaming OS. They already own half of the graphics langage market with DirectX. They're trying their asses off to own the other part, OpenGL. Smart move for Microsoft, but when are they going to start deploying houses and hotels on DirectX / OpenGL? Imagine if DirectX or OpenGL cost money to use. Imagine paying for your Microsoft-licenced drivers.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Boy, I just flew in here, and boy, are my arms tired.
[audience laughter]
Thank you, thank you, you guys are so nice.
The question is, what does this mean for Linux -- how will Microsoft exercise their "rights"?
Oh, no doubt they're just being protective of their property and make sure that this aspect of the software ecosystem is managed responsibly and openly. I doubt they'll use this for leverage over independent vendors.
[audience laughter]
Thank you! I'm here all week!
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Ahh, how appropriate, I was just going to make a post on the "donate to Gnome" thread about how this whole Mono thing is a disaster waiting to happen (i.e., Microsoft will activate the .NET "poison pill" as soon as Mono becomes a threat, through patents or other means, and Mono users will have no place to go but genuine .NET).
Perhaps this OpenGL bit will blow over, or perhaps we should keep an eye on it as a sort of model for future Microsoft attacks on "open xyz".
Let's check the link, there are some quotes:
Ahh, there's the magic "reasonable" (to Microsoft) and "non-discriminatory" (except if you don't agree to the terms). How would this cross-licensing apply to implementations other than the official OpenGL?
Uh huh..what does "more effective in a corporate sense" mean exactly....
Well I don't know much about OpenGL licensing, or how much of this extension stuff is implemented in non-OpenGL implementations (like Mesa?) so I'll just watch and see what happens.
In the gaming market M$crosoft is close to king
ever since DirectX 3 to now version 8.1 any game compagnie will chose directX for programming ease i guess but Open GL the other way of doing things is there competitor. What is MS to do File for Patent infringement
They'll have patent rights over OpenGL, among other things. Eventually, The Onion's article will be true. Did anyone else think of this?
s .html
http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatent
It's not too far off.
Danish != nationality
what about Apple? MacOS does a lot of things with OpenGL too...
Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
Please tell me why that is a requirement.
Usually I don't respond to these sorts of posts, but who wrote that? It's DAMN funny, and just about as clever of a song parody as I've ever seen.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Pretty simple,
Linux penguin please drop pants and lean over table.
Why compete when you can claim IP over key functionality? Not only can you nuke the competition but any resulting lawsuits layers your pockets with money.
-Matt
--- Need web hosting?
Read the bloody minutes, they arent demanding that OpenGL cease to exist, they are just declaring that they have related patents and as near as I could gather from the article they are being made available for use by OpenGL as long as the OpenGL people agree to allow Microsoft to use any OpenGL technology developed using them. It's a bit pre-emptive when we are hanging Microsoft just for having the patents, can we please use this effort on people who exploit their patents and not on those who simply posess them?
Slashdot: Proof that a million monkeys at a million typewriters can create a masterpiece
Wouldn't it be interesting if Sony were to license the "Emotion Engine" video technologies for the desktop PC market? As of right now MS seems to have a monopoly on the 3D graphics technologies market.
Sony is the only possible contender to come into my mind. Without competition, how soon until 3D graphics are only allowed to exist on Windows? Are we only one generation away from that? Does anyone other than Sony have a similar "mature" technology for 3D graphics, with the market clout to back it up?
What incentive would Sony have you ask? Well, MS makes the X-Box, which is based on DirectX. Sony has an incentive in my mind to keep DirectX games from being written for any platform. This is not too far from reasons the PS2 Linux kit came out...to train developers. Sony could be the next competitor, the current being Sun, to step into the ring and throw off the gloves with Microsoft.
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
THIS is how microsoft operates. If they cannot "embrace and extend" they will litigate their way to victory. I'm really not surprised by this action at all. We already knew Microsoft was concerned about the competition linux might offer and it seemed like we were getting too much of a free ride.
The only thing we can hope now is that the monopoly case will take a little bite out of Microsoft. Otherwise, this will continue to the point that releasing software or drivers for linux becomes a LIABILITY. At that point, no matter how much better the OS is, it is dead in the water.
I'm a bit confused why chrisd put "rights" in the body in quotes. Either they bought the patent and have rights over the code and programming model, or the patent does not apply and they have no rights.
Well the, shouldn't it be a simple case of renaming and/or reimplementing the extensions over which MS claims to have IP rights for the final OpenGL2.0 spec?
As it is, the spec is still currently under work. If John Carmack (I suspect you're reading this) can use the new, shiny XYZ_vertex_program extension or simliar (which is of course very different to the Microsoft one) in Doom III, driver writers will naturally include it to make their cards run the Doom 3 engine, and we'll be home free.
Of course, although it might not be part of the official 2.0 spec they'd be free to include the old extension too, at their call. So, everyone wins except Microsoft, which should please the Slashdotters greatly.
In any case they've offered RAND licensing terms, so it doesn't look like they're out for blood this time. Since this whole article is based off a vaguely worded paragraph from the minutes of a meeting with no legal opinions offered, I somehow don't think that this will mean the death of OpenGL as we know it.
<!-- DHTML / JavaScript menu, popup tooltip, Ajax scripts -->
So, they want to trade this one piece of IP for many pieces currently belonging to other people? Sounds like a really sweet deal for them. I'm not sure whether to accuse them of being sneaky or just stand in awe that they actually do understand the potentially non-scarce nature of information.
Does anyone who knows about how these comittees work want to comment on whether this is considered ethical? It would be better from an openness standpoint to have them just give it up, but reasonable licensing is better than having them try to exploit it after the standard is implemented (like happened with Rambus).
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
I'm just wondering how valid this claim really is. Does anybody know? Of course there is also the question of whether this claim will hold up in court. Hopefully someone will decide to try and fight this as Microsoft already has Direct X.
...interesting if true.
Keep it up. The CLIT must be denied; the moderators defied. We eagerly await your next first post.
Codeala - Just another mindless drone
So, before going much farther, I would like to see what exactly they're claiming they own and see if everyone agrees with that. If so, it should probably be seen by the OpenGL-gurus whether it's something that can be designed around. If not, <SLAP_ON_WRIST>shame on the OpenGL developers /designers for using non-open things!</SLAP_ON_WRIST>
And -before I finish my rant- let that be a lesson to all of us to check twice before integrating some cool idea. Make sure you didn't hear it from someone who will say they own it later! (I don't know how this really happened. That may or may not be the scenario, but I've seen it happen that way before.)
"Let your heart soar as high as it will. Refuse to be average." - A. W. Tozer
Ditto for me. I have some mod points but I'm wary about up-modding because I'm worried I'll get meta-moderated into oblivion. But that really is some hilarious stuff, so I'll vote with a 'me too' instead of a +1
From hell's heart I fstab at /dev/hdc
Does this seem a little like and old msg to any one else? "Perhaps this OpenGL bit will blow over, or perhaps we should keep an eye on it as a sort of model for future Microsoft attacks on "open xyz". Let's check the link, there are some quotes: They're offering to license their IP under reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; will license rights to the extent necessary, provided a reciprocal license is granted to MS. Granted on 1:1 basis for OpenGL 1.3, 1.4, and earlier versions. Ahh, there's the magic "reasonable" (to Microsoft) and "non-discriminatory" (except if you don't agree to the terms). How would this cross-licensing apply to implementations other than the official OpenGL? Microsoft suggests that other bodies have licensing terms that are more effective in a corporate sense, and we should look at adopting some of those terms. Uh huh..what does "more effective in a corporate sense" mean exactly.... Well I don't know much about OpenGL licensing, or how much of this extension stuff is implemented in non-OpenGL implementations (like Mesa?) so I'll just watch and see what happens. "
He makes the important point that Linux is not the only refuge for OpenGL.
It was disproved years back, a little after Gore invented that Internet thingie.
However, I'm a little confused. What parts of vertex & fragment shader are they actually claiming IP on? I thought it was nVidia that had IP on hardware vertex & fragment shader extensions, and that they licenced that IP to Microsoft for use in DX8.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Apple, in addition to a heck of a lot of other companies, would not stand for MS claiming ownership over parts of OpenGL. They're making heavy use of it in QuartzXtreme. But, thankfully, as someone noted, it appears to be a non-issue. Although, this kind of thing still is scary.
then OpenGL will survive solely on Linux (if it survives at all).
and MacOSx.
Check this out http://www.apple.com/opengl/
It's sort of fundamental to the way OSX does 3D.
It's exactly this sort of crap that made me jump ship and buy a Mac in the first place. Of course Apple have been flexing their muscles a little too much lately too.
The DirectX 7 and 8 exposed programmable pixel/vertex shading abilities long before OpenGL did. The development of these DirectX versions and the first GPUs capable of them from nVidia et al were basically hand in hand.
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
MS knows that games are a HUGE sales driver for the desktop PC. They wouldn't do this unless they thought non-Windows/DirectX games could be in danger, no matter how small the danger appears now. And I don't mean that there are only MS/DirectX games out there now but rather there is a potential for Directx's growth in market share to be stopped.
This is an aggressive move by strategists to try to neutralize potential problems 3 years down the line, THAT's when the chokehold will appear.
Super slimy but completely understandable if not brilliant from a business perspective.
While i believe that Microsoft is not doing anything relevant to the current slashdot that is not completely within their rights, it is very important to remember:
"Microsoft has every right to do whatever they want" is currently an incorrect statement. Microsoft is currently legally determined to be an illegal monopoly. That means that until government correction, which has not happened yet, Microsoft's rights do not currently encompass "whatever they want". There are a number of things they do not have the right to do.
Of course, the things that they have no right to do because they are legally a monopoly are not relevant to the current discussion, like i said, but please keep that in mind-- they currently DO NOT have the right to act in an anticompetitive manner, in certain ways under certain circumstances that would be legal for an other company.
That said, the current article is just stupid. It would be interesting to have a conversation on the subject of exactly how much of OpenGL is subject to destruction by a malicious entity buying up and then denying public use of OpenGL-related patents, but the incendentiary attack in the slashdot blurb is totally unwarranted as MS has not given any indication of doing anything yet. The bit about MS buying bits of OpenGL is important but we've already had a slashdot thread on that somewhere.
that's awesome.. wish i had mod points for ya..
why doesn't Linux?
Me Three! I think I will go to H2K2 and perform this on the piano in the hotel lobby.
WHoever writes these songs is doing a really good job. My favorite was "Goatse be good" to the tune of Johnny Be Good.
Microsoft seems to be willing to play nice with OpenGL right now, but what happens if and when they change their mind and "suggest" people use DirectX for all games?
Is this the last generation of 3D graphics for gaming as we know it? MS holds all the cards...right?
-Pete
Soccer Goal Plans
What about the SEGA finding, where the court fount that if the hardware required the software to do something, then the hardware manufacturer didn't have a kick comming when a aftermarket software house released a game that did what the hardware required, even though the software company didn't license the code from the hardware manufacturer?
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
MOD parent up!
This brings up a valid point. Currently there are many voices saying the same thing. But where is the respectable representation that can take this from and ideological fight to a corporate level.
Really, it has come time for the Linux Development Group to evolve and consolidate.
Look around at the proponent sites of open sorce and you see most are not updated. We need a confident, technically saavy, and business minded ($$$) group to go forward and address things as this where it really matters...the wallet.
If we don't fight for ourselves no one will.
http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/3d.html
Anyone remember this?
4 .s html
http://slashdot.org/askslashdot/01/03/29/171820
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
shouldnt this be outdated when they change the coding over? just a guess
Righteousness postpones the inevitable
http://burningaureole.caveism.net
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Hey, don't forget about Mac OS X. Apple is a huge player in on the Open GL field. There's probably actually more development for OpenGL apps and games for MacOS then their is for Linux.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
There's pretty much no hope that this stage of the anti-trust trial will have an outcome that forces MS to licence their IP.
And if the courts did impose such requirements, the terms would certainly be "reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms" that Microsoft is offering.
Because Apple is a corporate entity, whereas Open Source is a philosophy?
If you consider the makeup of the board, only IBM has any kind of direct interest in Linux and I really don't think they want Linux for it's amazing leaps forward in GUI design.
The remainder of the board all have their own fish to fry and none of them are direct contributors to Linux, AFAIK.
So, boys and girls, time to nut up and get some corporation to back the OpenGL initiative on Linux, which means someone's gonna have to make some bucks off it somewhere to cover the cost of all that politicking.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Not too long ago, Microsoft was being sued by some company for BLATENTLY STEALING a design idea (cool it have been apple (desktop), word perfect (Word processor), Lotus (Lotus 1-2-3 Spreadsheet), The whole OSS world (the internet and all it's protocols)? Anyway, Bill Gates made the statement "Every Car has a steering wheel, you can't patent the steering wheel..." while defending that it was ok for them to steal (as opposed to create/innovate themselves).. Perhaps it's time for the OpenSource world to take the same tactic...
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Change our defense tactic that is.. not our innovation tactic! (We want to continue to truly innovate..unlike MS)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Try the google mirror
"Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." -Homer Simpson
Because bus fare to the meeting hall is $1.80, and that's cost-prohibitive for Linux users.
Personally I think thats something they would do, own the IP Patents, grant Apple a "free" use licence but turn away opensource. Calling it yet again "Virus / Backdoor" software.. (well atleast something similar)
like I buy any micro$oft crap anyways..
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
I thought that the writers of a standard which was designed to be open in its implemetation would be more careful so as not to include other companies' ideas in their product, whether it be Microsoft's of anyone else's.
Obviously intellectual property, as opposed to trademarks, patents and copyrights (i.e. ideas as opposed to actual code) is a fairly large, often equivocal area, but it seems that this, however innocent, could set a dangerous precedent. Microsoft is a business, and they are there to maximise profits. They have proved that they often use very unfair and illegal means to get to this end in the past, and this just seems to be a potential area of abuse once their lawyers get hold of it.
This idea was invented by Shampoo.
when we need it ?
And I suppose the film industry (which is using more and more inexpensive linux clusters to render 3d animation) is going to just let OpenGL go to MS? I think not. (if OpenGL isn't truly open and if it does go to MS, the community will start another TRULY open graphics solution.)
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Doesnt SGI have IP in OpenGL as well?? isnt that why Mesa is made with *Real OpenGL Flavoring* (tm) ??
Apple is a company, Linux is not.
The answer is probably something like... voting member groups can join the ARB for $100,000 yearly membership dues. For that, you'll get a link to your company's website on the ARB's member list page. Member companies may also send up to 3 corporate research workers to the ARB meetings, which may be located in completely random places in the world.
My other first post is car post.
The question is, what does this mean for Linux -- how will Microsoft exercise their "rights"?
The question is, when will folks in the US make enough stink to get rid of software.. err.. I mean mathematical patents. Software patents do nothing but slow innovation and create a legal minefield as we see even by the fact that the OpenGL group is having to worry about it. Software patents are totally incompatible with free software, not to mention freedom of speech. How's that different from ordinary patents? Because software has a zero cost of entry and is often NOT developed as a commercial enterprise but rather a pasttime.
You can read a little about the ARB here.
My other first post is car post.
"Processor for geometry transformations and lighting calculations", assigned to Microsoft Corporation, issued today, July 9, 2002.
One has to ask, what does the name OpenGL imply? If they (or a company they bought IP from) did develop IP and contribute it to OpenGL, then, while they might still have a patent on some expression of an idea, I would expect that they can't go very far on controlling what they contributed to an OpenGL standards group.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Try this instead.
"Linux" is not. Do you mean just Linus Torvalds? Some kernel developers? Mandrake, SuSE, Red Hat employees? Patrick Volkerding?
Lalala -- it's all madness, that's why LSB exists, and why United Linux is trying to exist. It gives a nice, corporate friendly coherent entity.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
Every day there is news that MS owns this or that and BILL invented everthing that has something to do with computer world. MS has bought and paid for Bush and the inside the belt ways guys and knows he can screw with us all he wants. Your computer that your paid for will become little more then a TV box from the cable company that they (MS) will control as they please.
M$ sure is on a monopolistic rampage... monopoly this, monopoly that, damn they'll also be saying soon that they own IP for the Internet but they brushed it aside because it was insignificant.
It's obvious that people at M$ are involved in testing games because they lose concentration, get angry easily and have trouble associating with others.
However, just so much of this is bad news that a whole lot is coming back for this post.
Microsoft believes they have patent rights relating to the ARB_vertex_program extension. They did not contribute to the extension, but are trying to be upfront about it. They're offering to license their IP under reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms; will license rights to the extent necessary, provided a reciprocal license is granted to MS. Granted on 1:1 basis for OpenGL 1.3, 1.4, and earlier versions.
Who here wants to bet that Microsoft, who they admit didn't contribute to the extension, were the ones that used the term "reasonable and nondiscriminatory"? I find it surprisingly unprofessional of the transcriber that they kept the wording as fact. I also find it surprising that anyone can say with a straight face, "If you want to use this extension to shade the corners of your polygons, you must give us the right to use all of your software, and all of your old software, any way we see fit. It's 1:1." If it really was one to one they would walk away with a method of optimizing bump mapping, or some such.
IBM thinks it's premature to vote on this without seeing the MS license terms. NVIDIA wants to vote it in at this meeting. SGI thinks if we can't deal with IP claims, we might as well all go home.
Ah, IBM is wise in the ways of patent warfare. IBM, today being played by Suzy Deffeyes, knows all too well that if an opponent signs on the line before the contract is written, your terms will only seem "reasonable" as in the eyes of a conquering army. NVIDIA, Nick Triantos and Pat Brown, shame on you! You may be great engineers, but you are horrible lawyers.
Microsoft suggests that other bodies have licensing terms that are more effective in a corporate sense, and we should look at adopting some of those terms.
Microsoft is now suggesting the term "OpenGL" should mean open for business, and not Open doors. Notice this is a sudden attack on the very nature of OpenGL, not to mention it's ability to compete.
Technical issue - 3Dlabs doesn't find 1.4 all that compelling without vertex programming, but finds the vec4 architecture underlying ARB_vertex_program too hardware-specific to include into 1.4 except as an optional subset. Seems short-sighted to incorporate into the standard when this assembler-level functionality is likely to be quickly superseded by new silicon generations; but it serves a tactical purpose, to take advantage of current market conditions.
And so we see Microsoft's plan starting to take form... The fellowship is breaking.
Bill asked about Microsoft's IP position on just the program management framework; Dave was unable to comment at this point.
Forgive me for being so pessimistic, but when you run in and say you have a patent claim on part of the development spec for your project... Couldn't you have a little more background information available? At least for your own knowledge?
Suzy asked Microsoft to figure out their IP claims, if any, against just the program management stuff.
Once again, Suzy, I salute you.
However, I really have to question the purpose of having microsoft on board. They disagree with the business model, the offer a competing product which they have made every effort to set as the defacto standard, and they have a long history of joining competing projects in order to destroy them. Java anyone? Microsoft doesn't make graphics accelerators, chipsets, or computers like everyone else on that board does. They are the OS, but they are also a competitor to the group's mission. Why do you invite the wolf in to protect the sheep?
My god, it's been a long time since I hated microsoft this much. Thank you again, Slashdot, for reminding me what is important in life.
(Sigh, time to go punch the Microsoft butterflies again. The stuffed ones, not the foolish ones.
This Sig is a mnemonic device designed to allow you to recognize this author in the future.
I seem to remember Brian Paul, author of Mesa, as being on the ARB but I don't see his name there. Is Precision Insight still alive? Is Brian still alive?
:(
-metric
Some people would disagree.
There is considerably more to the computing world than PCs. High-end 3D graphics don't get done on PCs, just the low-end stuff that makes it into games. Even here there's no monopoly - Sony has its take on gaming, as does Nintendo.
If you're suggesting that Microsoft offers the dominant 3D API for Microsoft platforms, well then yes - it does. But then where's the surprise in that? Sony offer the dominant API for Sony platforms, and Nintendo offer the dominant API for Nintendo platforms.
Don't be too quick to cry 'monopoly'. It devalues the term, and makes it lose impact for when it's really needed.
Cheers,
Ian
When unisys (whatever happened to them) tried to enforce it's patent over GIF compression, PNG (a better format all together) was designed and implemented in a few months.
A GPLable 3d graphics library may be more difficult but is worth doing.
Sometimes free gifts are just too expensive to accept.
The question is, what does this mean for Linux -- how will Microsoft exercise their "rights"?
Like they always do with patents: only force them when someone squeeses MS' thumbs for a couple of bucks. MS patents a lot of technology, but not for money, but for the possibility to KEEP using the technology without having to pay a huge amount of money or worse: having to battle in court.
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
If they start exercising many of the patent rights they bought from SGI, they will have to remove the Open from OpenGL. Hmmm, dosen't DirectGL have a nice ring to it?
From my observations over the years, I think MS only finds things humorous when financial pain is present in their competitors.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
It's not like you can fight MS by not supporting .NET. .NET *will* be a succces, Microsoft will ensure that with their money. A lot of Windows developers are already brainwashed by Visual Studio.NET ("oooh! cool!", "the best thing ever!", "java sucks!").
Audience applauses
Thank you, Thank you!
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Wrong. They are a legal monopoly.
That means that until government correction, which has not happened yet, Microsoft's rights do not currently encompass "whatever they want". There are a number of things they do not have the right to do.
Correct.
Microsoft may well be aiming to use this to exclude open source from the table--commercial vendors that are part of the consortium cross-license their patent portfolios related to OpenGL and Linux is out in the cold. That is, after all, what Microsoft really wants. They know they can beat down Apple and SGI, it's Linux they are afraid of.
Whatever, I kinda run with that crowd. The Bushes have a place next door to one of my parent's places. Anyway, I would Fuck the shit out of either of GWB's daughters. They are both dumb as rails, but hot as hell. Rich dumb, and from a rich dumb family that will set you up for life, doesn't sound too bad. I sleep with Micheal Bloomberg's daughter on and off, (swear to god) but maybe I should aspire for a presidential daughter. Last thing I need is to get busted bringing one of Bush's kids into a bar.
Well it would be nice to be detached enough from reality, that your grandchildren's grandkids would not have to worry about money. Yet GWB is a crook anyway.....
You have two processors: the CPU and the GPU. You partition execution of the graphics code between them in a variety of ways and you standardize that. What, exactly, is the invention supposed to be?
The idea of OpenGL 2 is to be backwards compatible by reimplementing the old (1.3) fixed vertex processing model, as a vertex program on the new vertex shader hardware. Same thing with blending, texture lookup etc versus fragment shaders. If you need to drop the shaders, this all falls apart, and GL2 becomes merely an exercise in reintegrating a bit of the extension-jungle into the core -- that'd be OpenGL 1.4 or something, not 2.0.
RAND, of course, means commercial cross-licensing. Microsoft is using this as a tactic for excluding open source. They know they can kill companies like Apple in the market, but they are deathly afraid of Linux and open source. OpenGL is a particular thorn in their side since it just won't go away, and Microsoft's own junky 3D interface hasn't been able to kill the competition. So, Microsoft is now trying underhanded legal maneuvres
I think the only way for open source to play will be to have an open source patent portfolio and to bring that to the table. Open source needs its own bargaining chips at the table.
Maybe they will just rename it ClosedGL.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
If they don't, then they should. While Windows and MacOS have monolithic, unwieldy GUIs that are constraint by a need to cater to legacy tastes, Linux and X11 neatly modularize the major functions of a window system: 2D graphics, input methods, window management, inter client communications, network transparency, resources, authentication, etc.
In Linux, you can actually try out new window management styles, new input methods, or new kinds of widgets without having to start from scratch.
The real problem is that almost nobody is doing research in human-computer interaction anymore--everybody just keeps tinkering around with the same old paradigms.
I personally am not surprised. Microsoft, in the person of nerdboy Gates and sweatfactory Ballmer, must have been insenced recently in reading all the press reports about the desaster that the XBox has become. Microsoft will never just drop it completely. They will do as they have done with every single other product that they have: They will modify it into version 2.0 and 3.0 etc until it finally gets accepted through sheer weight of numbers. My idea is that this is simply Microsoft at it's best trying to deny market access for anyone else who doesn't want to get owned by them. They will obviously try to patent key areas of OpenGL, only in order to later deny anyone else the right to use it, all to the advantage of DirectX. This will all go into XBox2, with which MS will probably try to make it illegal to use OpenGL.
I am very glad that it looks like the EU is going to ban Software Patents. In the end Europe will be more inviting to competition in the Software field.
Of course, the USA classifies it as a dangerous munition (they think Saddam will use it to write nuclear bomb simulations :-)
this is REALLY old news, but Apple signed an agreement with Xerox to use PARC technology - M$ just copied Apple. Not the same thing at all.
That was classic intercourse!
OPEN-GL Party raging, bright lights and music etc.
Weedy MS guy knocks on door, no bottle or beers.
MS: 'Hi, we demand to come in, otherwise, we'll buy your house and chuck you out.'
Open GL guy: 'It's an open party. You don't have to blackmail us.'
MS: 'What does open mean?'
From my Autobiography - "Lifestyles of the Sad and Desperate"...
Huh? Linux isn't a company or other entity. Mac OS doesn't have voting members on the ARB, does it?
Well I actually just worte to my senator about M$. No doubt it will be ignored.
Well, you've got two academics on that ARB, including Mike McCool, who, if I remember correctly, is a Linux hack. I highly doubt Linux is his primary interest, but I wouldn't be surprised if the viability of Linux OpenGL implementations had no bearing on how he votes.
I like this quote from the minutes:
:-)
IBM thinks it's premature to vote on this without seeing the MS license terms.
It looks like IBM learned its lesson really well when dealing with Microsoft 20 years ago, and now are going to be really watching what agreements they sign.
As well, SGI's response is curious:
. SGI thinks if we can't deal with IP claims, we might as well all go home.
I wonder if they mean that they don't want to worry about the IP claim, and are trying to just ignore it. Or if they agree with it, and just want to leave it at that.
Good meeting though, nontheless.
~ kjrose
...becase if they continue to show their true MS colors, they can kiss my business goodbye, and hopefully others will follow suit and show them that we don't appreciate and will not tolerate that kind of business.
From the reading of the minutes from the OpenGL review board, it looks like that MS is only seeking licenses for OpenGL 1.4, 1.3 and previous versions. I am not really sure what the details are on the license since the members of the board have not seen the details of the license itself either.
If MS is only seeking IP rights for portions of the OpenGL in version 1.4 and older, then there shouldn't be any problems with future development of OpenGL 2.0. From the looks of things, 3DLabs is heading up that effort almost entirely on its own (Way to go 3DLabs!) but working with the rest of the vendors and hardware as well as software companies in roughing out the details. (Let us not froget who owns 3DLabs: Creative Technologies).
Let's hope that MS doesn't buy Creative.
but the incendentiary attack in the slashdot blurb is totally unwarranted as MS has not given any indication of doing anything yet.
Firstly, "yet"? Half of the companies at the meeting wanted to shake on it before the MS representative even revealed their intent (which he wouldn' for the duration of the meeting). That's more deleterious than blindly agreeing to EULAs these days. It appeared to me (though I could be wrong) that MS didn't want to specify *how* their IP related to the specification, just wanted to vote on it. A successful vote at that rate would mean that not only would they not have to disclose the related IP they own, but also not have to disclose how they were planning on licensing it right away. That's what we call a bluff in poker. Again, that could be completely wrong, but that's what it looks like to the casual observer.
Secondly, I searched through the minutes, and Dave and Microsoft only came up whenever IP was mentioned. It appears like their only intent in attending the conference was to boast the IP that they couldn't *really* prove exists. I'm submitting a patent request for a lightsaber, want to buy a license to build one? Granted, it more than likely does, but it seems a little sketchy at best, given the business tactics they've engaged in before.
Basically, I agree. No harm was done here. It would be nice if the patent process were faster and mor thorough, so that companies could disclose freely their IP while it's in the works. I just ethically don't agree with their tactics (as a person, not as a gnu/linux zealot), and so believe that a suspicious eye should be cast upon their motives whenever they act questionably (where another company might be given more slack).
I'm no MS apologist.
But you should read the statutes before you go about waving anti-trust law like it were real law. American anti-trust does not conform to the Rule of Law, that is, it is not objective. When you as a corporate agent, whether executive, shareholder, peon, whatever, undertake some action, you CANNOT KNOW if it will violate the Sherman act or the Clayton act, etc. These laws are deliberately written in the vaguest conceivable terms, using undefined jargon, to give the Feds the power to stomp on whoever they want and let alone who they want.
Furthermore, the acts criminalized by anti-trust law are made illegal, but they are not immoral. Anti-trust laws are on the same plane of moral illegitimacy as laws against drug use and oral sex (betcha didn't know THAT was illegal!).
just give them a shout-out in the THANKS file...that should be sufficient.
From the minutes: Microsoft suggests that other bodies have licensing terms that are more effective in a corporate sense, and we should look at adopting some of those terms.
"More effective in a corporate sense" means "proprietary" in Microsoftese. The subtext is that they're offering a Devil's bargain - OpenGL can have this technology without fear of Microsoft's claims on it, provided OpenGL makes it and all the rest of OpenGL's own technology unavailable to those Godless commie open source loons.
Oh, of course Microsoft would also like to be able to co-opt GPL code for their own products without having to publish source, but that's a less significant issue. Get over yourselves, open source programmers - your precious GPL code is not really that unique or valuable. If Microsoft wants it, they can afford to rewrite it. They don't need to share the code you wrote, although they'd like it and it would save them some money if they could avoid paying the non-monetary price of GPL compliance. What they cannot stand is the idea of you sharing code they wrote; that's an eventuality they'll avoid even if it kills them, because they're even more egotistical than you, and they overvalue their code to an insane degree.
Direct X get a lot of its "goodness/acceptable" performance by copying and integrating OpenGL specs?
I seem to recall John Carmack/Romero ranting about how poor the API for direct X was (20 lines of code to rotate an object vs 3 for OpenGL vs 2 for Glide...not the right #'s but that was the gist).
Granted, this was in the pre directX 6 days, but the Glide/OpenGL specs and implementations were heavly used in DirectX, were they not? (Probably leading to the purchase of SGI's patents...were those patents royalty free or something?).
Granted DX8 so far is a capable API, but no matter what it still seem "top heavy" compared to OGL.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
>Microsoft is currently legally determined to be an illegal
> monopoly.
Wrong. They are a legal monopoly.
Umnh... you mean that they have been legally determined to be a monopoly that engages in illegal acts, yes?
I can't parse that sentence in any other way and make it align with the facts and reported "findings of facts" that I know.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
"The question is, what does this mean for Linux"
Nothing, because hardly anyone uses it on the desktop. The real ramifications are not to any specific platform, per se-- but to the idea of an OPEN GRAPHICS LANGUAGE. Hence, the name: OpenGL. If anything, the Mac would have a lot more at stake if Microshaft gets their hands on the kitchen sink. Steve-o has been pushing hard at getting OpenGL out there.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
GameMaster: You are currently sitting at a table with Lord Microsoft the Unholy, a 400 lb convicted felon and thug who has beat you up for fun many times in the past. He got busted by the cops, but was out on bail 24 hours later. He has just taken out a gun and put it on the table. He says he's not going to kill you, and he's only taking it out to let you know he has it. What do you do?
Apple: Pray to the GUI Gods and Hollywood Heros for assistance.
Tux: I rewrite my own OpenGL code until I gain an experience level.
BeOS: I roll the d20 and --
Gamemaster: Sorry, BeOS, you're already dead. Lord Microsoft killed you in Q3 2000, remember?
BeOS: But Palm reanimated me.
Gamemaster: Palm sucks. He's not in this game. This is OSWars ADVANCED. If you want, you can play as QNX or Menuet.
BeOS: NOT FAIR!! NOT FAIR!! I WORKED SO HARD ON THAT OS! I DEVELOPED HIM FOR YEARS! APPLE, WHY DIDN'T YOU SAVE ME WHEN YOU HAD A CHANCE? WAHHHH!
Apple: Sorry. The Unixey Goodness Goddess had me under a spell of seduction, much like my shiny TiBook now has all of you.
Microsoft: 5 to 1, baby, 1 in 5. No one here gets out alive. I use my FUDpower to see if I can cause Apple to spontaneously combust.
Gamemaster: I can't believe you beat the Dragon of Justice, Microsoft.
Microsoft: I cheated, GM. Now roll the damn dice.
--Zoober
Apple's nothing but Bill's lap dog right now: "What? OS X for x86? No more Office for Mac!"
Since he's GL goin 2.0 only for Doom III,
not being able to write for the WinXtraPricey
platform is really gonna put a hurtin on
Ids sales...
Microsoft is a legal monopoly that has been found to act illegally in some areas. If they were an illegal monopoly they'd be in a lot more trouble.
--
E_NOSIG
is FreeGL. OpenGL exposes open standards that are available to all, that are "open". It's this sort of confusion that has made the Free Software Foundation emphasize freedom instead of the nebulous openness.
No, I see this misconception every time a patent story appears on Slashdot. A trademark does not expire, but can be abandoned.
A patent lasts about twenty years, but does not have to be uniformly defended. In fact, a company with a large patent portfolio (especially one acquired through mergers) may not be immediately aware that a current technology infringes one of its patents. BT's hyperlink patent is a controversial example of this.
In other cases, companies attempt to popularize a patented invention through a standard to develop a revenue stream. Unisys's GIF patent is an example of this. Rambus apparently tried to patent JEDEC-related inventions. The MPEG-4 standards are laced with patents.
While patent abandonment is not an issue here, the following may be:
Having a monopoly is not illegal. Microsoft was not found to have used illegal means to reach its monopoly position. In that sense, Microsoft is a "legal monopoly."
Microsoft was found to have used illegal means to maintain its monopoly.
How does a company get on the OGL ARB, and how can they be removed?
M$ has destroyed other standards before. I don't want to see them claim so much of OGL that I can no longer use it. They also have a platform-dependant competitor they are pushing, i.e. DirectX. So, I'll ask again - WHY were they allowed on the board in the first place, and HOW can they be removed?
You are all fartheads.
You're being naive.
No, I was being sarcastic.
-- MarkusQ
If Microsoft ever messed with Carmack, he'd just release all of his new games for Linux only.
If the CBDTPA passes, it might become a felony in the United States to make or sell a computer capable of running Linux.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Oh and for that to work, everyone needs a removable hotswap hard drive bay.
Those already exist. For smaller storage, you can use a CF card. For larger storage, you can connect the hard drive to the computer through a FireWire(tm) brand IEEE 1394 interface.
Will I retire or break 10K?
It's actually "To win the game, you must kill me, John Romero." It's all the same in the end though. :-P
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
you sound like a poser, wannabe, dumb, rich, white guy...but dont worry, im sure the Bush daughters have already had their cherries popped by another wannabe poser.
> and I really don't think they want Linux for it's amazing leaps forward in GUI design.
What amazing leaps forward in GUI design?
I think that Microsoft is very bad. How come noone on /. has noticed this before?
There seems to be a tendency for what I call "close proximity" patents or "I was in the room when" patents.
Open GL is the work of SGI not Microsoft. The 3D rendering on the PC is the work of vareous card makers. Microsoft happend to "in the room".
But they were not "in the room" when it was invented. The 3D rendering we see on desktop PCs today was originally on mainframes and super computers nearly 20 years ago and workstations 10 years ago. Microsoft was still selling Basic when this stuff was intented.
Basicly Microsoft has as much right to Open GL as Netscape has to the web or AoL to the Internet.
In reality this is a "Well nobody patented yet so we will" patent. The patent office in issuing such a thing is doing sloppy work and shows the state of patents today to be one of the patent office version of "first post".. and this one came 10 to 20 years late.
Spec bodys should consider a liccens stating that members will not seek patents on the specs should they violate this they release those rights to the specs group or agree to be banned from access to the specs.
I know it's the software interface layor on Intel platform that Microsoft is patenting leaving SGI super computers, Amigas, Macs and thousands of prior art untouched however this genetic enough to be a creative patent on existing technology.
I don't actually exist.
I knew the assholes at M$ would start cracking the IP whip on OpenGL as soon as I heard that SGI sold some of the patent rights to them. I would not be surprised if they slowly either killed OpenGL in order to push people into using Direct3D (inherently forcing them into using an M$ OS), or began charging licensing fees for the use of OpenGL. The purchase should NEVER have been allowed, as they have been PROVEN to be an aggressive, anti-competitive, monopolistic company.
I fear the computer world will not learn or take heed until it is too late. Most people just Do Not Get It.
PGA
Well, I'm also a little too old for them. And I am not a member of the Mayflower pact.
Didn't say I could, but I would if could.
One of MS's big fights right now is with Nintendo and Sony over the video game market. My understanding is that the gamecube uses openGL. I wonder if this might be something to do with why they're interested in the openGL patents? A while back MS tried to buy Nintendo for 25 billion dollars.
And guess what? They got a slap on the wrist for it!
I sincerely doubt that they care whether or not it's legal for them to do whatever they want. They didn't care before; why should they start caring now?
The only way the typical /.er can pick up a chick is with a forklift. -- AC
If they don't, then they should.
Why should they? IBM has narrowed their field of interest down to the server - for that you need a GUI? You might need it on the terminals used to monitor the system, but you don't need a gui for that.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
an application programming interface (API) that exposes hardware features needed to create computer graphics. Unlike Microsoft's Direct3D, which only works on Windows, OpenGL works across all platforms. OpenGL Game Programming is a complete guide to game development using the OpenGL graphics API. Myriad examples are included to demonstrate various concepts such as coloring, texture mapping, blending, lighting, coordinate transforms, 3D modeling, collision detection, and several other key concepts involved in game development. It also covers how to integrate the non-graphical elements of Microsoft's DirectX into OpenGL games so that users can incorporate sound, music, and networking functions. Teaching users how to use OpenGL to create dynamic 3D environments and effects for use in game development, this book covers all the fundamentals so that users can program OpenGL API to its fullest potential. Anyone interested in game development will find the information in this book invaluable as they begin to create dynamic game graphics. Series editor André LaMothe has published numerous magazine articles and is an international best-selling author with over six game programming and 3D graphics titles to his credit. He has been active in the computing industry for more than twenty years, during which he created one of the world's first commercially available virtual reality games, CyberGate. André is also the founder and CEO of Xtreme Games LLC.
According to IP Trade Secrecy Law (Last I knew) if someone accidently stumbles on your secret, it's your loss. One example would be Coca Cola (R). If their formula were to leak it would be perfectly legal for someone to start manufacturing it. Why do you think they keep it so secret? In order to enforce IP you have to prove to the courts that you make a good effect to keep it secret. Obviously Microsoft has not made a good effort to keep it secret if thousands/millions of people are using an open source/free version of it, huh?
" This is an interesting case of Microsoft applying, to language, the technological strategy it refers to, publically, as "embrace and extend", and allegedly refers to, internally, as "embrace, extend, and extinguish". This strategy, also known as "pollution", is to partially embrace an open standard (such as the Java programming language), and then add proprietary features to it in an attempt to fracture the standard and win the market for the proprietary version. (e.g., Microsoft's version of Java). When applied to language and ideas, this strategy could be considered a case of what, in cultural theory, is referred to as recuperation, or incorporation. This is when a dominant class or interest observes and redefines a subversive subculture: for example, the socially-conscious Punk movement is redefined as a style of fashion and music. (the use of "recuperation" in this specific sense seems to derive from Dick Hebdige). In this case, Microsoft is deliberately seeking to redefine Open Source as a harmful practice, while transferring the positive associations of the term to its own substitute term, "Shared Source". " --http://www.tjm.org/blogger/blog_archive/2001_06_ 24 _archive.html
What is happening now to OpenGL is very similar to the situation encountered by Sun with Microsoft's pollution of Java. Microsoft had no right to modify and make incompatible, let alone bundle, Java with its products. It just asked Sun for the rights to Java, and Sun, like idiots let them have it. Java for that reason never reached its full potential, and most web-users will not realise its intended purpose: cross-platform "one-code-fits-all" compatibilty, the average user will think its merely what it makes their Yahoo chat tick. Java is essentially a failure, due to Microsoft's intervention.
M$ are doing very much the same here; just asking the IP owners for the rights and then screw them. Microsoft's claim is unlikely real; they're just using it to create a fear, and in confusion of what might happen and misinformation, while under pressure, they submit. They might sue whoever owns the IPs, whoever that might be; the public, the countless contributors and IP holders, but that will not happen, as they know right well they do not have a plausible case. In the mean time, however, Microsoft hope everything will drift its way, without the need for a court case, which I am not sure is even possible under the OpenGL arrangements. Anyway, why has it been so long that OpenGL was imposing on M$'s patents, if that is true, and action is only occuring now? Their claims on infrigements sound like essential, fundamental part of graphics; shading, vertex, developments these are likely to have begun at the start or early stages of the project, and ANY other graphic projects. Why has DirectX been around and developed for so long, since around 1998 with Blindows98, and this is only becoming an issue now, four to five years later? Why, we could do the exact same thing to Microshaft; create magical claims to rights of esssential, fundamental properties (But of course we're not that immature or so desperate or uncooperative; unlike Prick Gates and his evil M$ empire).
The fact of the matter is that there is no need whatsoever to have knowledge and access to Microsoft's assets in exchange for your own, as, though it might seem attractive at first, Microsoft will screw you, it ALWAYS screws you, always have and always WILL, that's the purpose of this exercise; not to benifit OpenGL but SCREW OpenGL, its community and its development. Please, do not be so STUPID as to believe M$ is trying to do something beneficial to what is, after all, ITS COMPETITORS, competitors whose products are superior, and a MAJOR THREAT to M$'s monopoly and dominant position. As a comment above stated, government intervention is needed; M$ is getting too powerful. Palladrium, OpenGL, and more to come I would suspect, drawing MORE and more power to M$, much to the INTENTIONAL and CONSEQUENTAL detriment of the the Open Source movement - I'm getting scared; I don't want to be using and FORCED to be using M$'s products and I want their abuse of the market ENDED not made WORSE than it already is and has been for the last TWO DECADES. Yes, government intervention. I will admire the senator who will raise the matter and proposes new legistaion (which seems to be neccessary, as court cases are too long and, though they may conclude M$ maintains an ILLEGAL monopoly, they leave the matter unresolved).
Microsoft is undergoing a desperate and rapid struggle of reconstruction in an attempt to maintain its ILLEGAL monopoly; OpenGl, .NET, Palladrium, are all part of this. The ulimtate purpose is to block and stunt the development of its competitors, the most threatening of which is now Open Source. They have caused enough damage to the industy; to innovation, to consumer choice, for too long and this CANNOT be allowed to contiunue.
All OpenGL's work will go directly and exclusively to Microsoft, but where will Directx's work go? another problem, no one company/group ownes all the rights and patents to OpenGL. The purpose of this exercise is to stunt development of gaming on Linux and other platforms, which will, in turn, make Linux less attractive, as choice of games will be limited.
But Linux popularity is growing, indeed, I CANNOT WAIT to free myself from the Blindows hell; I feel to escape from this disgusting M$ prison. I look forward too to when I can walk into my school and see all computers convert to Linux; and see students intrigued, and indeed challenged by it. Yes, the future's bright for Linux, but people will want games. As of now, though they are there, the selection is limited. This is due mostly to the fact that most games are made using M$'s Directx, which is propetiery technology, compatible only with Blindows. This was the reason Directx was created, to create incompatibilities. But, I know, and as Microsoft is so afraid of, is that if Linux usage was to increase by say, even 5%, it creates a substancial market, and you and I know that market will not be deprived of games software for long, no matter how much M$ tries to deter and infleuence the producers. This clever observation was made by Be too. The 'deter producers with the lack of Directx on competing platforms' strategy will only work for so long, as once usage increases, a market is created and OpenGL is waiting to be tapped into. This is what M$ can see, and this is what I can see, which is why they want to control not only Directx, but OpenGL too. I find M$'s argument to be invalid, so there is no need to be at our knees at for Micro$hit and Prick Gates. It was the same way for Sun with Java; no one was forcing them to give M$ Java, but they were stupid, but they failed to see that given the SLIGHTEST chance M$ will ALWAYS SCREW its competitors, instead Sun fell for it, they were screwed and Java FAILED.
Microsoft will screw you, it ALWAYS screws you, always have and always WILL, that's the purpose of this exercise; not to benefit OpenGL but to SCREW OpenGL, its community and its development. Please, do not be so STUPID as to believe M$ is trying to do something beneficial to what is, after all, its competitors.
"This is an interesting case of Microsoft applying, to language, the technological strategy it refers to, publically, as "embrace and extend", and allegedly refers to, internally, as "embrace, extend, and extinguish". This strategy, also known as "pollution", is to partially embrace an open standard (such as the Java programming language), and then add proprietary features to it in an attempt to fracture the standard and win the market for the proprietary version. (e.g., Microsoft's version of Java).
.NET, Palladrium, are all part of this. The ulimtate purpose is to block and stunt the development of its competitors, the most threatening of which is now Open Source. They have caused enough damage to the industy; to innovation, to consumer choice, for too long and this CANNOT be allowed to contiunue.
When applied to language and ideas, this strategy could be considered a case of what, in cultural theory, is referred to as recuperation, or incorporation. This is when a dominant class or interest observes and redefines a subversive subculture: for example, the socially-conscious Punk movement is redefined as a style of fashion and music. (the use of "recuperation" in this specific sense seems to derive from Dick Hebdige).
In this case, Microsoft is deliberately seeking to redefine Open Source as a harmful practice, while transferring the positive associations of the term to its own substitute term, "Shared Source"."
What is happening now to OpenGL is very similar to the situation encountered by Sun with Microsoft's pollution of Java. Microsoft had no right to modify and make incompatible, let alone bundle, Java with its products. It just asked Sun for the rights to Java, and Sun, like idiots let them have it. Java for that reason never reached its full potential, and most web-users will not realise its intended purpose: cross-platform "one-code-fits-all" compatibilty, the average user will think its merely what it makes their Yahoo chat tick. Java is essentially a failure, due to Microsoft's intervention.
M$ are doing very much the same here; just asking the IP owners for the rights and then screw them. Microsoft's claim is unlikely real; they're just using it to create a fear, and in confusion of what might happen and misinformation, while under pressure, they submit. They might sue whoever owns the IPs, whoever that might be; the public, the countless contributors and IP holders, but that will not happen, as they know right well they do not have a plausible case. In the mean time, however, Microsoft hope everything will drift its way, without the need for a court case, which I am not sure is even possible under the OpenGL arrangements. Anyway, why has it been so long that OpenGL was imposing on M$'s patents, if that is true, and action is only occuring now? Their claims on infrigements sound like essential, fundamental part of graphics; shading, vertex, developments these are likely to have begun at the start or early stages of the project, and ANY other graphic projects. Why has DirectX been around and developed for so long, since around 1998 with Blindows98, and this is only becoming an issue now, four to five years later? Why, we could do the exact same thing to Microshaft; create magical claims to rights of esssential, fundamental properties (But of course we're not that immature or so desperate or uncooperative; unlike Prick Gates and his evil M$ empire).
The fact of the matter is that there is no need whatsoever to have knowledge and access to Microsoft's assets in exchange for your own, as, though it might seem attractive at first, Microsoft will screw you, it ALWAYS screws you, always have and always WILL, that's the purpose of this exercise; not to benifit OpenGL but SCREW OpenGL, its community and its development. Please, do not be so STUPID as to believe M$ is trying to do something beneficial to what is, after all, ITS COMPETITORS, competitors whose products are superior, and a MAJOR THREAT to M$'s monopoly and dominant position. As a comment above stated, government intervention is needed; M$ is getting too powerful. Palladrium, OpenGL, and more to come I would suspect, drawing MORE and more power to M$, much to the INTENTIONAL and CONSEQUENTAL detriment of the the Open Source movement - I'm getting scared; I don't want to be using and FORCED to be using M$'s products and I want their abuse of the market ENDED not made WORSE than it already is and has been for the last TWO DECADES. Yes, government intervention. I will admire the senator who will raise the matter and proposes new legistaion (which seems to be neccessary, as court cases are too long and, though they may conclude M$ maintains an ILLEGAL monopoly, they leave the matter unresolved).
Microsoft is undergoing a desperate and rapid struggle of reconstruction in an attempt to maintain its ILLEGAL monopoly; OpenGl,
All OpenGL's work will go directly and exclusively to Microsoft, but where will Directx's work go? another problem, no one company/group ownes all the rights and patents to OpenGL. The purpose of this exercise is to stunt development of gaming on Linux and other platforms, which will, in turn, make Linux less attractive, as choice of games will be limited.
But Linux popularity is growing, indeed, I CANNOT WAIT to free myself from the Blindows hell; I feel to escape from this disgusting M$ prison. I look forward too to when I can walk into my school and see all computers convert to Linux; and see students intrigued, and indeed challenged by it. Yes, the future's bright for Linux, but people will want games. As of now, though they are there, the selection is limited. This is due mostly to the fact that most games are made using M$'s Directx, which is propetiery technology, compatible only with Blindows. This was the reason Directx was created, to create incompatibilities. But, I know, and as Microsoft is so afraid of, is that if Linux usage was to increase by say, even 5%, it creates a substancial market, and you and I know that market will not be deprived of games software for long, no matter how much M$ tries to deter and infleuence the producers. This clever observation was made by Be too. The 'deter producers with the lack of Directx on competing platforms' strategy will only work for so long, as once usage increases, a market is created and OpenGL is waiting to be tapped into. This is what M$ can see, and this is what I can see, which is why they want to control not only Directx, but OpenGL too. I find M$'s argument to be invalid, so there is no need to be at our knees at for Micro$hit and Prick Gates. It was the same way for Sun with Java; no one was forcing them to give M$ Java, but they were stupid, but they failed to see that given the SLIGHTEST chance M$ will ALWAYS SCREW its competitors, instead Sun fell for it, they were screwed and Java FAILED.
Microsoft will screw you, it ALWAYS screws you, always have and always WILL, that's the purpose of this exercise; not to benefit OpenGL but to SCREW OpenGL, its community and its development. Please, do not be so STUPID as to believe M$ is trying to do something beneficial to what is, after all, its competitors.