Slashdot Mirror
Patent Issue Delays Doom 3 Source Code Release
An anonymous reader writes "id Software is still planning to release the Doom 3 source this year, but it's been delayed by a patent issue that's causing John Carmack to personally rewrite some of the code. The patent issue in Doom 3 concerns the Carmack's Reverse algorithm and has led Carmack to rewrite it in the open-source Doom 3."
So some patent troll deserves money because someone discovered something a random genius discovered again from scratch a year later, long before the patent was granted? And this helps innovation somehow?
This time, the pages linked from the story are very helpful. Carmack independently discovered the algorithm a few months after Creative's employees. They properly patented the process. I'm not sure how it escaped litigation this long; Carmack's lawyers were right to question this issue before the code release.
This has all been above-board WRT Creative. It merely raises the question again as to whether patents should last over 10 years, or whether patents should be issued for software in the first place.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
For patents, the filing date is what counts in this scenario. The one to file first "wins". There's more to it, IIRC, as you can claim priority on public disclosures and foreign patents. So if you publish something in a scientific journal, say, you have a year to file a patent for it, and your invention is protected retroactively since the publication date in the journal. Someone who knows U.S. patent law better feel free to chime in with corrections, I'm not 100% sure about it. I'll ask a patent lawyer at work to see if he has anything to add to that.
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
The key is the scope of the claims in the patent, which is what defines what the patent covers and doesn't cover. Claims are not code, so they can cover multiple specific implementations of an invention.
As for Carmack's work as prior art, it would only count if it were published (or on public use or sale in the US) more than a year before the filing date of the patent (or less than a year if the patentee can't show that they had invented it before said publication/use). In any event, prior art on or after the filing date of a patent isn't actually "prior".
I realize there may be a financial incentive for rewriting what is no doubt a fair chunk of one of the key "selling points" of the DOOM 3 engine, however I'm glad to see that this is being done so the source can be released *publically*. Even if not much comes from it, I personally enjoy going over the code released from id Software...it's like going and in time and watching Da Vinci with a hammer and chisel.
(Yes, yes "Carmack's no Da Vinci", but he is as close to one as most Programmer's can get.)
"When I am king, you will be first against the wall..."
It's like we're trolling ourselves.
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
I sent John Carmack an email about this back in April 2009:
Hi John,
I believe you've said publicly that you are planning a GPL release of the Doom 3 source code, but I remember around the time the game was launched you had Creative holding a patent on the shadows algorithm, and you assuaged them by including support for EAX. Is that still causing problems?
-Dave
When we release the code (no date set), anyone that uses it would potentially be infringing. There are workarounds at a modest performance cost.
John Carmack
It sounds like id's lawyers are asking him to implement one of the workarounds he mentioned before he makes the public release.
So Carmack is doing something for the good of society, and a commercial company chooses to add a roadblock. But rather than give up, he spends his own time to rewrite the algorithm in a way that avoids the patent. That is a phenomenal level of dedication to the open-source community. He doesn't have to release the code. He doesn't have to rewrite that section.
Thank you John.
"The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying." - John Carmack
This is an amazing gift to the FOSS community. Not only are they just deciding to give away code they don't use anymore - but they are putting SERIOUS EFFORT into making it safe to release to the community. This shows without a shadow of a doubt that Id Software are GOOD GUYS. We need to give these guys our thanks.
Whats the harm in yelling 'Computer, end program!'? You could be living in Star Trek! Go on.. give it a try.
When I was your age, we http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1ZtBCpo0eU
Enjoy :)
!!!
It sounds like Carmack is implementing a workaround to the Creative patent. That's very decent of him, but there's still nothing preventing release of the original (claimed infringing) source code. At worst, anyone who *used* the source would be infringing but publishing it would not be a problem (the patent is disclosed by definition, after all).
Seeing the original implementation side-by-side with the new workaround would be incredibly interesting, I think.