Slashdot Mirror
Several Publishers Sued for Infringing 3D Patent
jok writes "According to a story on GameDaily, law firm McKool Smith is suing several publishers for infringing their patent on a "Method and Apparatus for Spherical Planning", filed in 1988. Among the companies being sued are several big names, such as Square Enix, Electronic Arts, Vivendi Universal, Sega."
I quote:
"Common sense says it's ridiculous, and from a moral standpoint it's outrageous," anonymous employee at major publisher.
Find Nearby Indie Events
If that was in 1988, how much longer will that patent last?
Playing pornographics games during the day is evil! Play at night!
Does this mean I'm no longer allowed to play UT??
Have lawyers finally realized "why sue (and win) for others if we can do the same thing for ourselves"?
Now the middlemen are selling direct! You own a patent, you file a lawsuit, and you take all the profits^H^H^H^H^H^H^H compensation.
The article has mentioned enough "common sense" and "ridiculous" so I guess we have get the point.
What's interesting is why/how did a law firm get this patent? Did it 'invent' 3D on monitor, or did it purchased the patent from a third party? The patent's inventor is "Waller, William G. (Portland, OR)" but McKool Smith is claiming these 12 companies infringed on their (not their client's) patent.
Either way, it's going to get ugly because this is a law firm, it probably has all the resources and knowledge to do well in court, and we all know owner-operators usually work harder.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Because they seem to be the largest growth industry as of late. This is ridiculous, just like the Eolas patent.....Ben Franklin's descendants should try and patent electricity, it just might go through in the systems current state.
-or so you'd think
A few more such patents, and this will end up snowballing companies into realizing how futile their patents are.
Slowly, companies are beginning to realize that although they could make money suing people, they could also get sued by equally greedy asshats.
It's only a matter of time. You can only be so stupid.
should expire after 5 years. I am generally an advocate of patents for VERY SPECIFIC things that obviously required a lot of R&D, but lets face it, if you can't make money off a patent in 5 years, you are in the wrong industry........
Monstar L
So is this patent on Pi? or just on a technique for simulating depth, for prior art, do I need to pull up van gogh or dali? or just mario 1?
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
uspto link
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
Due to pending lawsuit.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
By the time it comes out the patent will be expired!
"The patent is ridiculously broad. It's purely McKool Smith trying to make money. It's an abuse of the legal system"
McKool Smith? WTF kind of name is that for a law firm? Sounds like a shakedown scam operation from GTA:San Andreas.
And I hope that day comes sooner rather than later. This is about as asinine as suing others over "patenting" online coupons or graphical images. With every day I live, the more I despise lawyers. Vioxx lawsuits, personal injury attorneys, bogus technology patent lawsuits... It never ends. It's next to impossible to do business in this country anymore. Please, lord, make it stop!!
According to the filing, the patent is "Method and apparatus for spherical panning".
Imagine a world without lawyers
;)
Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.
You may draw the analogy
"The patent is ridiculously broad. It's purely McKool Smith trying to make money"
Actually, I don't want to waste my breath calling McKool Smith names. The big perpetrator here is the patent system and the patent offices who allows these general patents.
Underholdning.info
To give you an idea of where they are coming from, and it's purely money, here is the title of another article featuring McKool, Smith: Patent field yields high-tech gold"
I think that tells us that we will see more and more of this.
http://www.busyweather.com/
For those who find it odd that a law firm would own such a patent, they don't. The editors managed to munge this somehow... a quick trip to the patent database here shows that th epatent is currently assigned to Tektronix, which makes a bit more sense. As an old, slowly dying company, Tektronix is doing what many companies do and seeking to "monetize their intellectual property assets", which unfortunately involves suing the living bejezus out of everyone in sight.
Not to troll, but, couldn't this journalist have done a little more than just quote from one anonymous employee of a major publisher?
What is claimed is:
1. A three-dimensional panning method comprising the steps of:
storing applied graphic information representing a three-dimensional object in a first three-dimensional coordinate modeling space;
defining a second three-dimensional coordinate space as a viewing space from which the object may be viewed, the viewing space being movable at a selected radial distance around a selected reference point in the modeling space;
inputting and storing further information including panning information specifying a position from which to view the object;
moving the viewing space to the specified position in response to the panning information, effecting a transform of the coordinates of the object to the viewing space and to a two-dimensional coordinate screen space; and
displaying a two-dimensional image of the transformed coordinates, providing a view of the object from the panned-to-position.
2. The method of claim 1 where the step of moving the viewing space includes the step of orienting said viewing space with respect to the object, by varying at least one of pitch, yaw, and roll attitudes of said viewing space.
3. The method of claim 1 where the step of inputting further information includes the step of identifying a center of projection relative to the specified view position.
4. The method of claim 1 where the step of inputting further information includes the step of specifying a radial distance at which the object may be viewed.
5. The method of claim 1 where the step of inputting further information includes the step of specifying viewing window size as a degree of magnification of the displayed image.
6. The method of claim 1 where the step of inputting further information includes the step of specifying one of parallel and perspective transforms.
7. Apparatus for performing a three-dimensional panning operation, comprising:
memory means for storing entered information including applied graphic and panning information and a control program, the graphic information representing a three-dimensional object in a first three-dimensional coodinate modeling space;
input means for entering information including panning information for panning to a selected position from which to view the object;
processing means coupled to the input and memory means, and responsive to the panning information and execution of the program, for defining a second three-dimensional coordinate space as a viewing space from which the object may be observed, and for moving the viewing space, a selected radial distance around a selected reference point in the modeling space, to the selected position, effecting a transform of the coordinates of the object to the viewing space and to a two-dimensional coordinate screen space; and
means for displaying a two-dimensional image of the transformed coordinates, providing a view of the object from the panned-to position.
8. The apparatus of claim 7 wherein the processing means includes a means for orienting the viewing space with respect to the object, by varying at least one of pitch, yaw, and roll attitudes of said viewing space.
9. The apparatus of claim 7 wherein the input means includes a means for identifying a center of projection relative to the selected view position.
10. The apparatus of claim 7 wherein the input mean includes a means for specifying a radial distance at which the object may be viewed.
11. The apparatus of claim 7 wherein the input means includes a means for specifying a view window size as a degree of magnification of the displayed image.
12. The apparatus of claim 7 wherein the input means includes a means for specifying one of parallel and perspective transforms.
Drinking habits can be dangerous. You can choke on the cloth and the nuns will wonder where their clothes are.
a cube IS a sphere. There'll be a way for lawyers to wrest patent infringement out of cubes, too. I suppose Plato could claim prior art on his solids, though...
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
This is ridiculous.
I find the fact they're trying to claim the feasibility of patenting a, for computer graphics, very basic concept, nearly as amusing as the fact that they were allowed to patent it in the first place.
Having checked US Patent Database for the description of the said patent, I think I'll go ahead and patent... oh... 'Method of creating secondary colors by combining the three primary colors' ? The matter adressed by this patent is, IMVHO, not unique intelectual property - it describes a potential approach to a certain problem on an abstract plane, without describing practical solutions?
Disclaimer: I lack sufficient knowledge of legalese, so I might have missread and missinterpreted the patent description. However, my modesty prevents me from admitting I might be wrong.
'...computers in the future may have only 1000 vacuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1.5 tons...' Popular Mechanics, 03/49'
If that patent really has a leg to stand on, why not sue 3d app makers like Alias as well? Surely there's more profit that way...
Or are they counting on the game companies to simply settle?
The thing we ought to, as responsible slashdotters, push on the USPTO is not even "prior art" as most of the crowd pushes on, but the "unobvious to one skilled in the art" clause. Anyone who deals with coordinate transforms - in physics, graphics, or whatever, would have come up with the use of matrix manipulations to view graphics information based on viewer position. The other half of this "invention" is manipulating the viewpoints in a manner which emulates reality - basically it's a patent for an interface which is the same as you or I walking around an object to get a different vantage point.
That aside, there is the issue that 3D graphics have been out in the mainstream for over 10 years and nobody brought this patent up. I hope they're going to lose on statute of limitations.
Perhaps we should draft and file a Friend of the Court brief?
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Atari ST, Amiga, and even C64 had some games that all had 3-D rendered environments... before 1989... All someone needs to do is dig up these games (I can't remember their names) and show the prior art. I think these lawyers will eventually lose their stupid patent infringement bullshit crap and they'll get beat up on by some other large nasty lawyers who are good at beating up stupid lawyers.
It's only a matter of time before China finishes off the rest of the lot.
China's economy is booming precisely because they don't have any of this ridiculous patenting.
Once China has the upper hand, it could turn around, rifle through the patents, scoop up all the ones owned by anyone willing to sell them and launch an attack against the remaining copmanies with them.
Forget missles, baby! Here come the patent-wars!
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
The patent itself seems legitimate enough (there's actually technical detail, there.. and I'm not certain how much was known or "obvious" about 3D graphics in the late '80s).. but waiting 16 years to file suit is simply ridiculous.
Isn't there some provision that says the patent holder must try to minimize damages? Or am I thinking of something else (trademark?)
I am the maverick of Slashdot
Bowyer, A. & Woodwark, J.R. (1983) A Programmer's Geometry Butterworths ISBN 0-408-01242-0
Toward the end of the book - the entire first claim is provided - all subroutines necessary for panning.
Hell - I even did my first 3d movie in tectronix 4010 escape sequences using them (moving around a cube - it looked like the cube was rotating except for the offset center).
You may draw the analogy ;)
But not in 3D!!!
Meow. Now!
I agree with the 5 year duration.
However, the USPTO pedency for softwrae cases is about 4-5 years. So, 99% of your patent time will be wasted in the PTO fighting for your patent.
Changing software patents to 5 years after issue, just leads to submarine patents.
In either case, you have the difficulty of defining what is a software patent and what isn't. How much hardware can be in a software claim before it isn't software anymore?
Because if we have a "one drop" rule, I am always adding some peice of HW to the claim, which will at least allow me to litigate the issue of SW claim.
So, just shortening the time period doesn't solve the problem.
I for one am glad that McKool Smith is aggressively pursuing those that would rip off McKool Smith's innovative technologies just to make a buck. Without this patent, McKool Smith would have never been able to develop innovative games such as... what? There are no games developed by McKool Smith? Surely with such an innovative technology McKool Smith would have been able to make *great* games. Alas, there are none, because McKool Smith is just a lawyer, not a game developer. This is good for McKool Smith, however, for a number of reasons. The first is that lawyers are the most powerful lobby in Congress. It's practically impossible to pass legislation that would cut down on dear McKool's profits. It's partially because of this that Litigation is the fastest growing industry in the United States. An industry with no product. An industry that lives by leeching from other industries. An industry whose growth, if left unchecked, will cripple our economy. An industry whose growth will remain unchecked, because of a virtual stranglehold on the political process in this country.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
... that Id Software is missing from the list.
And also any of the companies that develop the really serious quantum / particle physics and medical scan 3D data visualization software.
It's obvious that these guys just want to make a big scene.
Today's weirdness is tomorrow's reason why. -- Hunter S. Thompson
My first thought was "why the hell would a LAW FIRM file patent relating to digital image processing"? My second thought was "why would they wait over 16 YEARS to defend their patent"?
Not only is the patent itself flimsy at best, the way it is being used is obviously exploitation. Have we all lost sight of why patents were established in the first place? I don't recall the intention was to STIFLE innovation and provide an avenue to generate a sudden, large revenue stream for the patent holder.
Was not the original intent of the patent system to provide incentive for inventors to develop and produce their invention? Wasn't the idea to provide a temporary period of protection to the inventor to establish himself in the market for his invention without getting ripped off by an unscrupulous competitor?
I think that if I am right then the patent system should be overhauled and be more restrictive--especially since it was built around the invention of physical devices. Not just in what is patented, but how patents are granted.
If there already isn't such a provision in place, the patent applicant should be required to demonstrate his intent to USE the information in his patent. Before a patent is granted, I think there must be an "invention sponsor"--either an organisation set up by the inventor himself or an initial licensee--that submits a business plan or similar evidence that the invention will be used and marketed. The patent then could be provisionally granted for a short term (5 years maybe?) and at the end of this term, if there is no progress then the patent is expired and cannot be renewed (though an inventor could start the filing process from scratch).
I think that even if this sounds harsh, lawyers and unscrupulous businessmen have demonstrated they cannot be trusted with an overly permissive patent system. It is an obvious perversion of the system when the patent holder is obviously not in a business related to the patent and has gone for years with no licensee or partner to apply the invention. If patent holders want a high-level of protection for their ideas, I don't think it is too much to ask for them to provide a high-level of detail as to their intent in applying the patent.
Reading the patent, which is obviously a bad patent as a) not inventive, b) it's obvious, c) it's trivial, d) it's too broad, e) plenty of prior art, but it describes a system of the camera moving around an object in a spherical fashion, which is the exact oposite of what happens in a game. If they had the guts, they should go after SGI, and anyone else who has written 3d modelling software, not games companies.
Not only should the patent be removed, but the companies involved should be fined for filing a bogus patent, and the law company disbarred for filing frivolous law suits.
Alternatively, they should win their cases, and this should me more evidence of the evil of software patents, and all software patents should therefore be removed. Rant over...
-- oldthinkers unbellyfeel ingsoc
So what about the hundreds of 3D Amiga demos (and ST, c64, etc.) that used exactly that technology before 1988? There is a lot of published source code (and how-to guides) for those around. The patent is essentially an obvious re-implementation of something that already existed in published form way before the patent was applied for.
1. A three-dimensional panning method comprising the steps of:
That is a claim. That is what determines if you are infringing or not. Forget the sepcification since that is just telling you of one way of practicing the invention. Note that the claim does not mention who makes your CPU or what display technology you are using. Therefore, it isn't "legal" if you use and AMD processor.
-truth
I had a steady B+ in my AI class until I failed the Turing test...
It's an interesting read that demolishes Slashdot myths. Successful world traders tend to share certain values. You'll find english language links here to the Chinese law of copyright, trademark, etc.
If there's one thing America needs, it's more lawyers. Can you imagine a world without lawyers?
-Lionel Hutz, "Marge In Chains"
Video clip of this
There is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men. -- Boondock Saints
Hi all,
Just got this spam about two days ago.. Maybe it is related..
------------------
Dear Business Professional,
You were referred you to me by an online listing about 3D graphic accelerators and I contacted you for a well-paid part-time consulting opportunity as an "Expert Witness".
In behalf of my client, I am looking for people who ideally have a Ph.D. and that are interested to assist as "Expert Witnesses" for a prestigious litigation case to possibly set precedence in the graphic processor industry. It is required to work on this case for up to 100 hours in the next 8 months. This would be a great way for you to create an extra source of income. Here are the details...
Demonstrated at least 10-15 years of successful experience in the 3D graphic accelerator industry
Knows how to valuate technology in this area
Ideally, has published articles about 3D graphic accelerators
Participated in at least one litigation case related to the software and hardware industry.
Excellent communications capability for written, verbal, and one-on-one persuasion
The goal is to consult our client as an equal partner and evaluate the case as an expert witness. The candidates will possibly meet executive teams of well know companies, partners of law firms and other interesting people beneficial to further advance their career. The candidate can be located anywhere in the US to fulfill this consulting agreement.
Please provide quantified examples of your success, resume, references and your relevant experience matching the above requirements ASAP. The project start date would be immediately after selection of the consultant.
If you know other experts that might also be interested in this consulting opportunity, feel free to forward this announcement, and let your friends know about it. The selection process of consultants to be interviewed will be based on the responses you provide with your reply email. The start date for the interviews will follow immediately after selection of the most appropriate consultants.
We are on a short timeline and honor a quick response on this message.
Thanks again and I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Jorg Huser
CEO / Founder
Micro Survivor, Inc.
Phone +1-408-690-2464
Fax +1-408-516-9814
Email jorg@microsurvivor.com
Enabling Emerging Business
http://www.microsurvivor.com
Euclid didn't work with analytic geometry, which associates numbers to points in space. You'd have to look to the Descartes estate for that.
And they're not suing CAD vendors because CAD vendors have a chance of being large enough to win by exhaustion.
From the link provided by parent - 'Method and apparatus for spherical PANNING'. Not PLANNING.