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"?

2 of 361 comments (clear)

  1. Re:It's an ARB requirement by lrichardson · · Score: 1, Troll
    " Microsoft does believe they have IP claims against fragment shaders, too. "

    I find the use of the word 'believe' quite funny in the minutes (used multiple times). Microsoft probably knows damn well they don't have any IP claims, but simply throwing their weight around like this serves their purposes quite well ... the extension ain't gonna see the light of day for some time, while people there scurry around in fear of an M$ lawsuit.

    And let's not forget their kind offer "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." !!! This to OpenGL?!?!

    Typical corporate tactics these days, mores the pity.

  2. "law" my ass. by MoNsTeR · · Score: 1, Troll

    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!).