Slashdot Mirror


Graphics Rendering Patent Suits Target Apple, Samsung, HTC, RIM, LG and Sony

angry tapir writes "Formerly known as Silicon Graphics, Graphics Properties Holdings has filed six separate patent cases against Apple, Samsung, Research In Motion, HTC, Sony and LG with the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The patent at issue in the lawsuits relates to floating point calculations to render graphics, and is registered as patent number 8,144,158 with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office."

159 comments

  1. Talk about obvious and non-patentable by itsybitsy · · Score: 0

    An array of 16 bit floating point numbers as pixel elements? That's not innovative in any universe.

  2. Et tu, SGI? by Shag · · Score: 2

    Back in the mid-late '90s, I was a dedicated SGI user, working on an Indy with PhotoShop 3.0 and all that good stuff.

    I'm disappointed to see SGI apparently taking the SCO path here.

    (Ironically, I administered a SCO OpenSewer box far more recently than I got to use any SGI kit.)

    --
    Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
    1. Re:Et tu, SGI? by Sique · · Score: 3, Funny

      So tell me what you are administering right now, so I can avoid it due to it becoming first obsolete and then nasty :)

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    2. Re:Et tu, SGI? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Windows.

      Too late, buddy.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Et tu, SGI? by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The haven't fallen to the level of SCO yet. SCO did stuff and then fabricated a claim that IBM did that stuff and thus violated their contract. SCO lied about their copyright status for other materials. They lied about ownership (fraud).

        This patent claim by SCO is different. While it is painful to see SCO using patents not innovation to make money is likely truthful.

    4. Re:Et tu, SGI? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 2

      SGI's assets were bought up by a new shell company around the turn of the millennium. These suits are no more SGI's fault than Oracle's suits are Sun's fault. The sad thing is, just like Sun, SGI was committed to keeping the fruits of their innovations open and available to everyone (e.g. OpenGL) and would never have done this.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    5. Re:Et tu, SGI? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't the SGI we knew and loved. SGI was bought out by IIRC Rackmount Systems a few years ago. It's just a brand name now, it's kinda silly, too, the GL patents are useless, SGI opened up IRIS_GL back in the late '90s/early 00's'. Can't really claim patent infringement when the company who's name and IP you bought effectively gave the whole world a license to use it.

      I still have an old IRIX system sitting around, they don't make 'em like they used to :(

      Still, you kinda have to figure that there isn't much other reason to buy out SGI, other then their IP arsenal, or what was left of it, anyway, after the mass divestments (I still cringe when I see what Autodesk has done to Maya). MIPS as a high performance platform is pretty much died with SGI, Itanium never really caught on outside of HP, but they pretty much inventented digital multimedia as we know it, that's got to be a goldmine for a patent troll in the media age.

    6. Re:Et tu, SGI? by Shag · · Score: 1

      You're safe - administering SCO (...well, and NT4 at the same gig) was the last straw, and I've now gone about 7 years without being talked into being a sysadmin on anything. :)

      Maybe it's just 3-letter names beginning with an S? SCO, SGI and Sun all went rotten.

      How's SMC doing?

      --
      Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
  3. New line of business by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Silicon Graphics -> Graphics Properties Holdings"

    Now you have to change your name when you go from "making and selling" to "patent trolling"?

    Ludicrous! What will be next? Bankers renaming themselves to Society Leeches?

    1. Re:New line of business by armanox · · Score: 3, Informative

      Rackable aquired the "SGI" name as part of buying off of the old SGI's assets IIRC.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    2. Re:New line of business by armanox · · Score: 1

      ignore the "off of," I'm not fully awake yet.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    3. Re:New line of business by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not all of them, they kept the bits that were still useful. The things related to high-speed interconnects and efficient NUMA systems, which are still relevant in the supercomputer market, they kept. The obsolete crap, they sold to a patent troll.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:New line of business by jones_supa · · Score: 4, Funny

      *Lowers the grammar nazi shotgun*

    5. Re:New line of business by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No such dice. "Society Leeches of America" would be misleading, people could think you want to appear as if you're Congress.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    6. Re:New line of business by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      They become Capital Holdings companies

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    7. Re:New line of business by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Rackable didn't just acquire the SGI name - they acquired the entire company: Buildings, equipment, employees, infrastructure... everything.

      In fact, not only did Rackable keep most of SGI's employees, in a rare move for a merger, most of the Rackable employees were given the pink slip; Rackable's old manufacturing facilities were closed, and SGI's were kept. It's pretty safe to say that the current SGI is the "old" SGI for all intents and purposes.

      SGI had more than a few troubled years from 2000-2008; the market changed and their core product - graphics workstations - evaporated. SGI sold off quite a bit to keep itself afloat - Maya, OpenGL, MIPS, the Cray trademarks & brand, as well as the subject of today's discussion: graphics patents.

      Claiming that Graphics Properties Holdings is "formerly SGI" is about as sensible as saying that the current Cray, MIPS, Khronos, or even Autodesk are "formerly SGI." They aren't SGI.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  4. An cue the standard reply by maroberts · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You've only read the damn abstract haven't you?

    How many times do people have to say READ THE CLAIMS before it sinks in that the abstract normally only gives an example and the patents claims normally go far beyond that. In some patents the abstract comes close to being completely misleading. Incidentally the claims are not restricted to 16 bit floating point representations or any other size of floating point accuracy, plus it's a continuation of other patents, so don't forget to read their claims too.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:An cue the standard reply by itsybitsy · · Score: 3, Informative

      As I said: "SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

      The present invention provides a display system and process whereby the geometry, rasterization, and frame buffer predominately operate on a floating point format. Vertex information associated with geometric calculations are specified in a floating point format. Attributes associated with pixels and fragments are defined in a floating point format. In particular, all color values exist as floating point format. Furthermore, certain rasterization processes are performed according to a floating point format. Specifically, the scan conversion process is now handled entirely on a floating point basis. Texturing, fog, and antialiasing all operate on floating point numbers. The texture map stores floating point texel values. The resulting data are read from, operated on, written to and stored in the frame buffer using floating point formats, thereby enabling subsequent graphics operations to be performed directly on the frame buffer data without any loss of accuracy.

      Many different types of floating point formats exist and can be used to practice the present invention. However, it has been discovered that one floating point format, known as "s10e5," has been found to be particularly optimal when applied to various aspects of graphical computations. As such, it is used extensively throughout the geometric, rasterization and frame buffer processes of the present invention. To optimize the range and precision of the data in the geometry, rasterization, and frame buffer processes, this particular s10e5 floating point format imposes a 16-bit format which provides one sign bit, ten mantissa bits, and five exponent bits. In another embodiment, a 17-bit floating point format designated as "s11e5" is specified to maintain consistency and ease of use with applications that uses 12 bits of mantissa. Other formats may be used in accordance with the present invention depending on the application and the desired range and precision."

      Nothing innovative about using floating point arrays for a pixel element frame buffer nor for operating on the pixels with various algorithms. Not patentable.

    2. Re:An cue the standard reply by BSAtHome · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But I read the claims and they are ludicrous. They basically state if you implement/use math in a specific manner, you are owned by us. And that is besides the obviousness to use floating point instead of integer/fixpoint (actually, integer and fixpoint approximations were created to overcome slow hardware). Once hardware is fast enough, you most often move to the more precise solution; there is nothing inventive about that, but a natural evolution.

    3. Re:An cue the standard reply by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      So...they've patented a particular combination of mantissa/exponent size for floating point numbers?

      Exactly how low can the patent office go?

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:An cue the standard reply by bertok · · Score: 5, Informative

      They actually say exactly that in the patent itself:

      In an effort to gain the advantages conferred by operating on a floating point basis, some prior art systems have attempted to perform floating point through software emulation, but on a fixed point hardware platform. However, this approach is extremely slow, due to the fact that the software emulation relies upon the use of a general purpose CPU...

      But as advances in semiconductor and computer technology enable greater processing power and faster speeds; as prices drop; and as graphical applications grow in sophistication and precision, it has been discovered by the present inventors that it is now practical to implement some portions or even the entire rasterization process by hardware in a floating point format.

      In other words, they admit that they've seen prior art where others have tried and failed. Instead of inventing a faster method for implementing floating point, SGI just waited until silicon caught up, and hey look, they "invented" floating point graphics. It's in the patent text that they did nothing but wait for Moore's law to solve their problem for them! How was this approved by the patent office!?

      I have this mental image of a lone clerk in the patent office somewhere, mindlessly whacking a rubber stamp on everything shoved in front of his face, while staring off into the distance with glazed-over eyes.

    5. Re:An cue the standard reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By that logic, SGI should have sued Intel for allowing any software-based 3D game to be written using their CPU's.

    6. Re:An cue the standard reply by maroberts · · Score: 1

      Again, the summary is very pretty, and may even help someone with 'ordinary skill in the art' in creating an implementation of the patent, but it *isn't* part of the patent claims, and is therefore irrelevant as far as whether determining someone has infringed or not.

      The actual claims place no reliance on any particular fixed or floating point implementation. Outside of the claims, the only way any such restrictions would exist would be if SGI had accepted such restrictions in dialogue with the Patent Office in getting the patent.

      In other words if anyone else has done an implementation with 32,64 or any other number of bits, then they've infringed (unless the patent is invalidated or shown not to apply in some other way)

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    7. Re:An cue the standard reply by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They actually say exactly that in the patent itself:

      In an effort to gain the advantages conferred by operating on a floating point basis, some prior art systems have attempted to perform floating point through software emulation, but on a fixed point hardware platform. However, this approach is extremely slow, due to the fact that the software emulation relies upon the use of a general purpose CPU...

      But as advances in semiconductor and computer technology enable greater processing power and faster speeds; as prices drop; and as graphical applications grow in sophistication and precision, it has been discovered by the present inventors that it is now practical to implement some portions or even the entire rasterization process by hardware in a floating point format.

      By the same method I could patent an electric car that has a 500-mile plus range, top speed of over 90mph and a charge time of under an hour. When the hardware catches up (i.e. other people do the real work) I cash in as having invented it. God, what a stupid system. No wonder people want to be lawyers rather than actually invent something - the lawyers can claim to have "invented" it on paper and take the money and credit.

    8. Re:An cue the standard reply by arisvega · · Score: 4, Funny

      I have this mental image of a lone clerk in the patent office somewhere, mindlessly whacking a rubber stamp on everything shoved in front of his face, while staring off into the distance with glazed-over eyes.

      And then this lone clerck in the patent office comes up with the theory of relativity. I know, right?

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    9. Re:An cue the standard reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could patent it, but not if I patent in first, and in which case you would infringing my patent... :)

    10. Re:An cue the standard reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would appear this is a continuation on other patents, with the original being filed in 1993.

      So tell me, twenty years ago was this obvious to any of the users here? Or is it obvious now only because they "invented" it?

    11. Re:An cue the standard reply by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why do I suddenly get the idea that someone went and came to patent the idea and that clerk didn't like him...

      It sure is material for a Hollywood blockbuster thriller.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:An cue the standard reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What confuses me is that the date at the top of the patent is yesterday. Haven't we had graphics using floating point numbers since like, the Nintendo 64 days?

    13. Re:An cue the standard reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evilstein V: The Patent Clerk

    14. Re:An cue the standard reply by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      So for those of us who don't speak lawyerese, how good/bad are the odds this patent will stick? I remember SGI was one of the first in the biz doing GPU heavy work so if anybody has patents that would put a serious crimp on mobile my gut tells me it'd be them, but as I said i don't speak lawyerese, especially not at 6AM, so if someone could give odds that would be nice.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    15. Re:An cue the standard reply by NGTechnoRobot · · Score: 2

      This is why a "show me it working" is an important step in the patent process otherwise I could patent any number of "Science Fiction" based products and just wait until they are invented! for example Start Trek Tricorder.

    16. Re:An cue the standard reply by Ash+Vince · · Score: 2

      By the same method I could patent an electric car that has a 500-mile plus range, top speed of over 90mph and a charge time of under an hour. When the hardware catches up (i.e. other people do the real work) I cash in as having invented it. God, what a stupid system. No wonder people want to be lawyers rather than actually invent something - the lawyers can claim to have "invented" it on paper and take the money and credit.

      You could do that yes, but it would cost you a fair amount of money. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070313050823AAND484

      But then not all patents stick when they are challenged in court so filing a single patent on your "invention" does not guarantee any return. In order to be sure you actually shaft the real inventor of an electric car you will need to invest probably in the region of $100,000. This is quite a lot of cash to invest, and even then there is a small chance that some bastard will successfully lobby congress to overhaul the patent process and flush all your money down the drain :)

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    17. Re:An cue the standard reply by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      It's been done. Here's the prior art:

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrsN8iTwFiw

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    18. Re:An cue the standard reply by erroneus · · Score: 4, Informative

      If someone told me "we need a system that can faithfully render analog reality on a digital display device" I would naturally assume, as we all have been doing for centuries, that we would need to approximate color and location as closely and as accurately as possible. The word "accurately" seems to require the use of floating point numbers.

      So, I tend to think it's obvious even back then. That "pong" did not look like a real ping-pong table with a real ball and a real paddle was not a problem of imagination, but one of technology not having advanced far enough yet. The use of floating point math in generating display information has been in practice for a very long time and if you were to include students making graphs based on math which uses floating point numbers, then you can go back much further.

      These "on a computer" patents are crap just as much as "on the internet" patents and "with a can opener attachment added" patents are.

      What they have patented is a "system or process" (software) which models what people have been doing for a long, long time. Sorry, but I just don't think that's a good basis for a patent. Invent something that people CAN'T do and you've got a patent.

    19. Re:An cue the standard reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simpsons already did it.

    20. Re:An cue the standard reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The time for which patents are granted is (still) rather finite, this approach can be seen more like speculating that the invention you patented will be implemented within the range of time for which the patent was granted.

    21. Re:An cue the standard reply by jbolden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Remember that SGI had a strong partnership with MIPS and jointly developed a lot of video and audio technology. They might very well have also invented the silicon.

      Lets not treat SGI like a patent troll with fake claims. This was a company that did a lot to advance our industry it is a pity of our law that bankrupt companies can have their memories tarnished this way.

    22. Re:An cue the standard reply by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I don't think this will be a serious crimp. Most likely it would be a licensing fee that all the mobile chip makers end up paying. So like an extra $3 per phone for years.

    23. Re:An cue the standard reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange patent

      Intro says for years we have wanted to use floating point, but it was too hard to implement.

      Now that technology has made it practical, we are going to patent using it.

      It's odd that the patent itself would say that the patent is obvious.

    24. Re:An cue the standard reply by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would appear this is a continuation on other patents, with the original being filed in 1993.

      So tell me, twenty years ago was this obvious to any of the users here? Or is it obvious now only because they "invented" it?

      I wrote assembly code for working with 16-bit floats on the Atari ST back in the 1980s. I don't remember the exact number of bits in mantissa/exponent but it's just a case of picking something that works for for whatever it is you're doing.

      For use in frame buffers? It's pretty damn obvious IMHO...everybody in the entire graphics industry has always known that 8 bits is only just good enough to represent color for the human eye. Many workstations had more bits and you even used to be able to buy PC graphics cards with 10-bit color (Matrox Parhelia range).

      So yes, it's obvious to anybody in the trade. The only reason for not doing it since day one was price.

      --
      No sig today...
    25. Re:An cue the standard reply by justforgetme · · Score: 4, Funny

      Round corners©

      --
      -- no sig today
    26. Re:An cue the standard reply by macshit · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would appear this is a continuation on other patents, with the original being filed in 1993.

      So tell me, twenty years ago was this obvious to any of the users here? Or is it obvious now only because they "invented" it?

      No it's not "only obvious because they invented it." They didn't "invent" anything, as it's an utterly straight-forward (as in it basically duplicates other IEEE FP formats) application of long established practice with different (but "obvious") parameters.

      Sure it's a good idea to do that—but you can't patent "good ideas," remember? Oh wait, with today's new "income oriented" patent office you can...

      [And that's the problem with many other idiotic patents these days—they're basically "existing technique, only in green!"]

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    27. Re:An cue the standard reply by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      Here's the abstract! Look at how unpatentable it is!

      You have to read the claims. Not just the abstract, but the claims.

      Oh, yeah? Here's the summary! Look at how unpatentable it is!

      Once more... The claims - they're the numbered paragraphs starting a few pages before the abstract. Only the claims have any legal weight. The rest - including the summary you quoted - is merely to provide context.

    28. Re:An cue the standard reply by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2

      I don't even know if you need to go that far. IANAPL but the patent seems to shoot itself in the foot, both by claiming people already do floating point rasterization in software, and by pointing out how the industry is waiting with bated breath for chip prices to come down enough for hw floating point rasterization.

      Hence isn't that an obvious next step for someone "knowledgeable in the field" or however that is phrased?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    29. Re:An cue the standard reply by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      Nothing innovative about using floating point arrays for a pixel element frame buffer nor for operating on the pixels with various algorithms. Not patentable.

      I don't know if I agree with the first claim, I don't think floating point was "obvious" when first invented, however long ago that was. However s10e5 is called out in IEEE 754, and has been in use for over a decade. This patent is dated 2011. Either it should be rejected because it's already in practice everywhere before it was filed, or it should be rejected because someone else did it first. Obviously IANAL and don't know if either of these basic principles is actually law, but they should be.

      They're able to sue "everyone", because it's part of standard graphics pipelines, and so "everyone" uses it. The first sign you have a bad patent is that too many people who are competitors with one another are on the litigation list.

    30. Re:An cue the standard reply by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      No, you've still got it wrong. As the GP pointed out, you need to look at the claims. The description doesn't really matter, the claims are what is really covered by the patent, legally speaking. Make sure you are arguing against the right thing, by fighting against the "SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION" you are wasting your time. The claims for 8,144,158 are as follows:

      What is claimed is: 1. A rendering circuit comprising: a geometry processor; a rasterizer coupled to the geometry processor, the rasterizer comprising a scan converter having an input and an output, the scan converter being configured to scan convert data received at the input, at least a portion of the data received at the input being in floating point format, the scan converter being configured to output data from the output, at least a portion of the data from the output being floating point data; and a frame buffer coupled to the rasterizer for storing a plurality of color values in floating point format.

      and

      7. A rendering circuit comprising: a rasterizer for performing a rasterization process, at least a portion of the rasterization process performed in a floating point format; and a floating point frame buffer coupled to the rasterizer for storing a plurality of floating point color values.

      Now, if you can prove those two things to be obvious, then the patent will be invalidated. However, to me it doesn't seem any more obvious than 1-click purchase.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    31. Re:An cue the standard reply by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Give me a break. This is like patenting any mathematical formula. It's a ludicrous patent.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    32. Re:An cue the standard reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Guide to reading patents, and why they're often seemingly stupid. The PTO reads the body of the patent, not the claims. The only thing they do with the claims is ensure that they're somehow backed up by the description of the design. They don't otherwise judge them. Once the patent is granted, infringement is prosecuted entirely based on the claims. Thus, the goal with most patent authoring is to write the claims in a way that seems to cover damn near everything. However, the patent actually only covers what's discussed in the body, as exhibited by the preferred embodiment of the invention (this is, of course, only for utility patents).

    33. Re:An cue the standard reply by Creepy · · Score: 1

      That and the fact that they are still getting license money from hardware vendors for OpenGL patents (as I understand it, you pay for these when you buy a graphics card). For this reason I question the validity of the patents for some vendors (I think Apple pays for using OpenGL in software, as well). Perhaps they are attacking Apple's non-OpenGL graphics or something, but I still suspect they are paying for the license already.

      As for obviousness, I don't know. All workstation graphics I used in the early to mid 1990s were integer based color, even for millions of colors (8r, 8g, 8b, sometimes 8 alpha transparency). Even when I was programming voodoo cards all of the color calls were all set as ints. I didn't start using float colors until the 2000s, and even then I don't remember setting them as floats (I used OpenGL or DirectX to convert them, if necessary). In the past few years cards have always represented colors internally as floats, but most people still set them as ints.

    34. Re:An cue the standard reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I have this mental image of a lone clerk in the patent office somewhere, mindlessly whacking off on everything shoved in front of his face, while staring off into the distance with glazed-over eyes."

      There, fixed for you

    35. Re:An cue the standard reply by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Look at the priority clause in the patent. It goes back to 1998. That is where you need to start looking for prior art.

    36. Re:An cue the standard reply by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Software floating point emulation is not prior art to this patent. The text of the patent explains why.

    37. Re:An cue the standard reply by hazydave · · Score: 1

      Actually, the claims only have a certain level of legal weight. The actual patent is granted on the "Description of Invention" -- the main body of the patent. That's the part the PTO reads and analyzes against prior art. The claims are generally only checked against the body, to ensure they're supported by the body, and I'm sure, not written too outlandishly.

      Now, once you're in court, it's the claims that are used to prosecute infringement. But they'll be challenged, or even tossed out, if they aren't properly backed up by the body of the patent, once you get to trial. It's true that you can't claim infringement other than on claims, but the claims are not the final answer. They're more like an annotated index into your description of what you believe the actual "invention" to be.

      I'm not a lawyer. I do write patents, and analyze the technical merits for lawyers, from time to time. Not my finest work, but I'm good at it.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    38. Re:An cue the standard reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt rasterization (of a 3d scene) was ever done before computers, it would have been totally irrelevant to even think about rendering 3d scenes on a computer, before computers were invented. let alone using all of the 10 claims outlined in the patent, which i suspect you've not read.

      I also don't agree with your clarification of what a patent should be. There are many reasons why you could legitimately want to patent something you can already do now.. for example doing something a different way which yielded sufficient efficiencies in the results, for example.

    39. Re:An cue the standard reply by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Good point about floating graphics. SGI was in the early 1980s one of first companies to make use of hardware floating point acceleration as a standard. Up until the 80486 math coprocessors were rare on PCs (and I believe the 80486sx which was the most common 486 didn't have one) and I don't even know when they had multiple floating point units.

      I think it is getting more clear this is a quite likely legit patent claim. And then it comes down to what people think about patents in general.

    40. Re:An cue the standard reply by hazydave · · Score: 0

      That's incorrect -- the description is the basis for granting the patent, it's the part that actually matters. The claim matter, too, but in a different way. They're calling out parts of the invention description that the inventor claims are unique. But the patent is granted on the basis of the description, not the claims. The claims are checked, but not with any precision. It's quite common for claims to be judged overly broad, or thrown out entirely. They have to relate directly back to the description of the invention, and they act largely as footnotes -- they can suggest, for example, that deviations from the preferred embodiment of the invention (what's discussed in the description, for any utility patent) are just dandy, but that in itself has no legal power. The PTO will usually eliminate overly broad claims, but not always. It's the body they're primarily concerned with -- that IS the invention.

      The claims are for the courts, and very much left open to interpretation. In fact, when you write a patent, you KNOW that the PTO is not overly careful in reviewing claims, and so you try to make the claim sound like it's covering anything you can get away with. But, in fact, it doesn't. A patent covers a very specific thing, not a general case of all similar things. This is one reason that companies, particularly patent trolls like this fragment of the once great SGI, don't like to go to court. Once in court, a claim can be judged to not apply. But it can also be tossed out entirely, either based on being overly broad, or in light of prior art. When that happens, you can't use it again, even to scare someone else into licensing. If significant enough, it may even call the PTO to re-examine the entire patent.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    41. Re:An cue the standard reply by Theaetetus · · Score: 2

      Actually, the claims only have a certain level of legal weight. The actual patent is granted on the "Description of Invention" -- the main body of the patent. That's the part the PTO reads and analyzes against prior art. The claims are generally only checked against the body, to ensure they're supported by the body, and I'm sure, not written too outlandishly.

      I'm sorry, but that's simply incorrect. And, yes, I am a US patent attorney. The PTO skims the description, but prior art searches are performed explicitly on the claim limitations. In fact, if your description includes material that's not in the claims (and you file no divisional or continuation applications claiming said material), it's considered to be dedicated to the public.

      Now, once you're in court, it's the claims that are used to prosecute infringement. But they'll be challenged, or even tossed out, if they aren't properly backed up by the body of the patent, once you get to trial.

      It is correct that the claims must have proper support in the specification (35 USC 112), but novelty (35 USC 102), obviousness (35 USC 103), utility (35 USC 101), and infringement (35 USC 271 et seq) are all based on the claims. See, for example, MPEP 2131 regarding rejections based on lack of novelty ("A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987)... "The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989).).

    42. Re:An cue the standard reply by hazydave · · Score: 1

      The patent clearly can't cover all uses of floating point, and even the patent authors clearly understood this. But claims, as always, try to suggest they cover everything.

      In truth, a patent covers a specific way of doing something. So assuming there's no other reason to judge this a bad patent, you still have to look at exactly how they implemented their floating point solution in hardware. For example, some fragment of SGI went after ATi some years back, and the court rejected the '327 patent as not applying, even though ATi was also using floating point rasterization. If your FPU engine uses a similar floating point implementation and architecture, even if it's an improvement, it probably infringes. If you went an entirely different way but still happen to use floating point, probably not.

      Obviously, there are edge cases, which is the whole point of having a patent court -- it's not always obvious if one device infringes on anothers' patent. And the courts aren't a panacea, either, they sometimes make the wrong technical decisions. Just the best system that exists for this kind of thing so far (though in terms of digging up prior art, the community as a whole often does this public service much better than the courts). Keep in mind that ultimately, the claims themselves don't have legal weight, other than to illustrate the part of the patent the patentee claims is unique. You have to look at the text of the patent when deciding what infringes, and specially, the very specific preferred and alternate embodiments called out in the main description. Many have tried, but in theory, you can't patent an algorithm.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
    43. Re:An cue the standard reply by Tweezak · · Score: 1

      In the comment "some prior art systems" I wonder if they are referring to ray tracing programs like POV-RAY. I recall that was incredibly slow depending on light sources and texture detail but the results were stunning for early 90s technology.

    44. Re:An cue the standard reply by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      the description is the basis for granting the patent, it's the part that actually matters. The claim matter, too, but in a different way. They're calling out parts of the invention description that the inventor claims are unique. But the patent is granted on the basis of the description, not the claims.

      I don't know why you think that. Andrew Tridgell did a good talk about how to read patents, and it was covered on Slashdot. Maybe you missed it.

      Only the claims matter, and for purposes of invalidating a patent, only the independent claims matter. See for example, this explanation, and this more boring one (look for IIA).

      You just wrote a whole lot of text that is completely wrong. You might want to consider where you got that information, and modify your method of collecting information so it doesn't happen again.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    45. Re:An cue the standard reply by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the same method I could patent a SUV that gets 5MPH. When Hummers catch up, I cash in as having invented it. ** We can invent things that we never want to happen ?! ** Anti-patents FTW.

    46. Re:An cue the standard reply by dr2chase · · Score: 2

      So, interesting question. A friend of mine, who worked for a while at Sun, and a while at Apple, late 80s, early 90s, both places on or near the graphics system, did the experiment of recompiling their graphics libraries (NeWS at Sun, I think it may have been QuickDraw at Apple) to use floating point. I can't tell, from reading the patent whether this is prior art, or not (a floating point frame buffer?) or if this work was ever published beyond talking to friends.

      This was back in the days when Apple sold both 68040 and 68040LC (no FPU) boxes, because his rant at the time was that it made the rendering faster, and fixed a half-dozen fence-post-y rendering bugs, but he couldn't ship the code because it was no good on the FPU-less boxes. Similar experience with NeWS (he worked on the PostScript interpreter, replacing Gosling's monster switch statement with a threaded-code interpreter). Don't know if that code made it into development, or not.

    47. Re:An cue the standard reply by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      Just another case of why software shouldn't be patent-able. Copyright does everything you'd ever need from a patent. Patents on software are just government sponsored monopolies, and directly HARM innovation, instead of protecting it.

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    48. Re:An cue the standard reply by sjames · · Score: 1

      It WAS. All of that has now been jettisoned as the company flamed out. The remainder is a non-practicing patent troll.

      The people who actually did the cool things got disgusted years ago and formed Nvidia.

    49. Re:An cue the standard reply by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Software floating point emulation is not prior art to this patent. The text of the patent explains why.

      To be patentable, it can't be obvious. The text of the patent basically says that hardware is now fast enough to do what couldn't be done before:

      "But as advances in semiconductor and computer technology enable greater processing power and faster speeds; as prices drop; and as graphical applications grow in sophistication and precision, it has been discovered by the present inventors that it is now practical to implement some portions or even the entire rasterization process by hardware in a floating point format."

      So what's their invention that's novel?

    50. Re:An cue the standard reply by Epimer · · Score: 1

      This is somewhat redundant as the excellent post preceding mine is absolutely correct, but: you have gotten this entirely backwards.

      If you would like proof, you can actually read all communications between the USPTO and the applicant (or, more usually, their agent/attorney) on the USPTO PAIR service. There is a time lag between new applications being filed and all such information being available online, but it gets there eventually.

      If you look at any of the communications between the patent examiner and the applicant/attorney during the examination process, you'll find that the examiner raises objections based on specific claims.

      For example, a Non-Final Rejection to the patent application which eventually became the granted patent in the OP was issued on the 27th June 2011. To quote just one sample part from that: "Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Deering US Patent No. 6,115,047 in light of [other relevant prior art]..." followed by a detailed argument of why the cited prior art anticipates the specific claims in question.

      The big downside to the USPTO PAIR system is that it presents all the correspondence in a horrible pdf wrapper and it has a horrible habit of kicking you out for prolonged inactivity, but it's a good resource for people who are genuinely interested in reading the arguments for and against a given application, what prior art was cited and why, and the arguments which were used to overcome citations.

    51. Re:An cue the standard reply by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      The text of the patent basically says that hardware is now fast enough to do what couldn't be done before

      It's not even about speed, it's about being able to get enough transistors on the die.

      Transistor size shrinks, that's a given. Transistor budget increases as a direct consequence and adding floating point is the obvious evolutionary path for graphics.

      When most graphics programmers saw the first floating point frame buffer I imagine there was much more "Finally!!" than "Whoah, dude, I never saw that coming!". This is what makes it unworthy of a patent, not that nobody ever did it before because they were limited by technology.

      --
      No sig today...
    52. Re:An cue the standard reply by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Since the range of colors is really pretty fixed since we're inventing the range, then floating point is actually a dumb idea.

      When you don't need a dynamic range you use fixed point which is FAR FAR faster on pretty much any computer in the real world. You get rid off all the stupid inaccuracies of floating point and dynamic range, no rounding errors at unknown precision points. Floating point gives you floating levels of accuracy. Fixed point is well defined.

      We work in floating point now in graphics because its far easier on the programmer to let the CPU deal with all the details of the range and overflows and such rather than doing it ourselves, but at the cost of allowing the computer to make some inaccurate calculations to deal with unreconcilable differences in properties of two numbers in a give system. /pedantic

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    53. Re:An cue the standard reply by jedwidz · · Score: 1

      Can we not just say that software should be as patentable as anything else? Why is software so special?

      I'm sure there are plenty of great patents out there, both for software and otherwise.

      On the software side, major advances in cryptography and media compression have in my opinion been rightfully subject to patent protection.

      These are mechanisms that are non-trivial, require significant R&D investment, yet are easy to rip off, and they provide crucial mechanisms for salable products. These patents also don't stifle competition, on the basis that there are other (similarly non-trivial) ways of getting similar results, which competitors are free to invent.

    54. Re:An cue the standard reply by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      Because software is, ultimately, math. And math isn't patentable. Why is math so special? Because it is already existent in the world, it isn't an innovation you create but rather the patterns and algorithms of nature.

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    55. Re:An cue the standard reply by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      Someone came out with an interpreter that could convert any program in a certain language to Lambda Calculus. That language is turing-complete, so any software could be implemented in it, any algorithm. That means that ALL algorithms are equivalent to lambda calculus. That means all software is math. Math isn't patent-able. QED.

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
    56. Re:An cue the standard reply by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I get that they are done doing stuff. I guess the question is whether a company that really did the work and for whom the patents are likely legitimate innovations is a "patent troll" or is a company using the patent system the way it was designed.

    57. Re:An cue the standard reply by sjames · · Score: 1

      Considering that all of the people who innovated are gone and the company no longer even has the capability to practice the patents itself, it is now a troll. If it at least had consulting engineers on staff who could help a client company get up to speed with the patent they chose to license, then they would be a legitimate company, but they don't HAVE willing clients, only those they can reach out and put the bite on.

    58. Re:An cue the standard reply by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      "These patents also don't stifle competition, on the basis that there are other (similarly non-trivial) ways of getting similar results, which competitors are free to invent." Sometimes there is no other way of getting results, other times you don't find out about the patent until the code has been in your product for many years, which would be fine if people sued in a regular court, but now these patent trolls are taking cases directly to the import/export courts, to get importing banned immediately.

    59. Re:An cue the standard reply by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Good point. If they no longer are willing to consult on their patents then they are just a patent troll.

    60. Re:An cue the standard reply by jedwidz · · Score: 1

      For the record, I'm against stupid patents, not least stupid software patents. And there are plenty of those.

      But I do think that a patent system is a good idea, if done well. And I don't think it should have arbitrary exclusions like 'you can't patent a mathematical formula', or 'you can't patent a gene'.

      Note that my examples of 'good' software patents all have a mathematical bent to them. There's a reason for that - the more mathematically sophisticated an invention is, the less trivial it is, and so (in my view) the more suitable for patent protection it becomes.

      Consider also that these days it's not uncommon normal for engineering of real-world designs to go through a protracted virtual phase - that is, they exist only as software*. I see no good reason why the design should be irrelevant to the patent system prior to physical prototyping. After all, the patent itself is ultimately just a paper document, yet another abstract representation of a physical (or non-physical) artifact.

      On the gene patenting front, I'd say it's fine to patent a gene if it's really an invention and meets appropriate standards of usefulness and originality. Existing genes identified by studying nature (or close derivatives thereof) should not be patentable - just look at the prior art!

      Same goes for drugs - the plant kingdom is full of useful substances, none of which should be patentable. (But on second thought, it may depend on how the drug is intended to be used, and how innovative that use is - like, if a plant produces a neurotoxin for defense, that shouldn't be patentable for its neurotoxicity. If the drug is found to cure cancer, patent away!)

      * Granted, you could argue that virtual engineering models are 'just data' and not strictly software, but the lines between software and the data it operates on are so blurry that (for current purposes) it's futile to try to make a distinction.

    61. Re:An cue the standard reply by AdamWill · · Score: 1

      That's the abstract, and as maroberts said, the abstract of a patent is not the important bit. Skip it. Read the claims.

    62. Re:An cue the standard reply by Zaphod+The+42nd · · Score: 1

      But the problem is the math is natural, it is INHERENT to the world we exist in. You're not inventing something, you're just discovering what always was, what is out there waiting for us.

      There's a very good reason why you can't patent math: It wouldn't work. Imagine if somebody had patented the Pythagorean Theorem. Anybody who wanted to use it would have to pay. You couldn't NOT use it, because it is FUNDAMENTAL to mathematics and the universe and further mathematics. You can't develop the rest of geometry, calculus, diffeq, etc. without it. You simply CAN'T. Patenting it STOPS all development and gives a monopoly to all future math to whoever got there first. And they don't even HAVE to let you licence their patent, they're free to sit on it and now THEY ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN WORK ON NEW MATHEMATICS. That would hold us back technologically for thousands and thousands of years. Math and Science REQUIRE a large community of peer-review and collaboration and oversight. No one man could ever invent all the modern mathematics. we have now.

      Math CANNOT be patented. And therefor, Software CANNOT be allowed to either. Software is a form of math.

      Sorry, NASA, you can't send rockets to space because all the functions and algorithms you'd need have been patented. See, that doesn't work. Patents should only be allowed for a unique creation, something that was your igenuity. Math is never that, math and science are our slowly increasing understanding of the existing natural world. "Discovering" Newton's Laws is not your own creation, its your insight to the universe.

      I'm an Atheist personally, but if you're a Theist, I'd say God has prior art on all Math and Science. :P Un-patent-able!

      --
      GCS/MU/P d- s:- a-- C++++$ UL++ P+ L++ E+ W++ N o K- w--- O M+ V- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5- X R++ tv+ b++ DI++ D++ G+ e++ h-
  5. This makes me sad by mikael_j · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I was hoping SGI would at least somewhat gracefully fade away, instead someone decided to do a cash grab before the remnants of a once-great company finally disappear...

    --
    Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    1. Re:This makes me sad by neokushan · · Score: 1

      This seems to be the norm these days - a company that was formerly massively successful begins to die down and fade away, so in a last ditch attempt to cling to live they sue anyone and everyone that has ever done anything remotely similar to them.

      Going by this logic, it does also mean that Apple must be ready to die soon. I mean, they can't have that much money, can they?

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    2. Re:This makes me sad by arisvega · · Score: 1

      I was hoping SGI would at least somewhat gracefully fade away

      I was hoping for a comeback- not like this, though.

      --
      The three laws of thermodynamics:(1) You can't win. (2) You can't break even. (3) You can't even quit.
    3. Re:This makes me sad by Rich0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This seems to be the norm these days - a company that was formerly massively successful begins to die down and fade away, so in a last ditch attempt to cling to live they sue anyone and everyone that has ever done anything remotely similar to them.

      Every successful company usually becomes that way under a founder. Or a founder-like figure (maybe the company was obscure for 100 years and then takes the world by storm - the leader in this case is like a founder). Under the founder all is well, and the company generally makes net-positive contributions to society.

      Then the founder retires, and his hand-picked successor takes over. They usually start having more of an eye towards whatever the founder hired them for (often marketing, or finance, or whatever). However, they were mentored by the founder and usually are fairly true to the original dream.

      After that the next succession is managed by the board's CEO search committee, and everybody after this could care less about visions and dreams, and instead aim to min/max their balance sheet and bonus check. Companies don't sue people - their leaders do. By the time a company reaches the state SGI is in, nobody who had anything to do with creating anything of worth is in charge.

      Going by this logic, it does also mean that Apple must be ready to die soon. I mean, they can't have that much money, can they?

      Every company is doomed to follow this cycle - it is the nature of wall street. Apple is now operating under the hand-picked successor. He will probably do reasonably well, but one day he will retire. Everything after that will be inertia. Oh, it takes a long time for a huge company to fail, and sometimes you get lucky and the wall street pick might actually turn out to be visionary. However, by-and-large the only innovations at Apple starting with the next CEO will be in the balance sheet.

      Sooner or later you can only cut the bottom line so much before the fall in the top line starts. At that point the company will bleed off anything of worth it still has left, until its only function can be that decreed by law - it is still able to collect money, write checks to the decision-makers, and file lawsuits, shielding the decision-makers from personal liability. It is nothing more than a front at that point, but it will continue on.

      Apple has always been lawsuit-happy, so who knows - perhaps we won't even last another CEO before the slide starts. It all depends on whether they start rewarding the lawyers more than the innovators like they do at most companies.

    4. Re:This makes me sad by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      I shudder at the thought what will happen to our economy should Microsoft and Apple start to become obsolete...

      I don't dare to think about IBM.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:This makes me sad by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Tim Cook has already done quite a bit of innovation in the manufacturing and logistics area. He is more like a Michael Dell than a Steve Jobs but he is not just a balance sheet guy.

      My prediction is that Apple goes mainstream under Cook, becoming something like IBM was in the 1980s.

    6. Re:This makes me sad by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Tim Cook has already

      But he's not the next CEO, he's the current one. The GP's point was that when the founder's hand-picked successor goes, that's when the rot starts.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:This makes me sad by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Yup. Like Jobs or not he clearly knew how to make a company successful. Chances are he picked a successor who is likely to have the right stuff, even if he isn't another Jobs.

      It all goes downhill once the search committee takes over. They're going to pick the same kind of CEO that any committee of this sort does. If the next guy has anything to do with Jobs, the committee will have likely picked him because how much he ISN'T like Jobs. People with what it takes to make a company a big success rarely resonate with a dozen wall-street types.

    8. Re:This makes me sad by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Oh I see. I buy that.

    9. Re:This makes me sad by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      I would question the idea that Jobs 'knew how to make a company successful.' He had a particular knack for making one company successful. Which is more of a 'fate' thing that anything else. Jobs had quite a few fairly unsuccessful ventures after first leaving Apple and before returning. And he would not, ever, be the sort of person who could immerse himself into any random company and make it successful. His success was in a particular niche of a particular industry. His success was more of a quirk than anything else.

      Trying to 'learn business success by studying what Apple has done' is similar to when American businesses in the 90's strived to 'learn business success by studying Japanese companies.' It doesn't work. There's no formula there, just an odd phenomenon.

    10. Re:This makes me sad by snadrus · · Score: 1

      Let me give it a try (no shudder necessary):
      Android (& Linux in server rooms) has a healthy set of varieties around a common platform, like DOS did with DRDOS, etc
      It runs on a variety of hardware made from various vendors like LG, Samsung, HTC, etc and many smaller vendor/resellers, like DOS did.
      Anyone without prejudice can write apps for it, similarly but better than DOS had.
      DOS was Microsoft's greatest growing period, yet now Android's moderninity competes head-to-head with Apple's offerings. Where it lacks it wins on price, like DOS did against Apple years ago.
      It sounds like a better-for-society place to be in all respects.

      As for IBM, it sells thousands of products to businesses. It's free of any real "core product" (except Websphere which is more of a programming environment with support) allowing it to buy & sell branches far more easily. A world without IBM has no large businesses as they're already there and adaptable. Considering how much everything's going toward big business, a world without IBM is only possible if we return to an all-agrarian society.

      --
      Science & open-source build trust from peer review. Learn systems you can trust.
    11. Re:This makes me sad by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. Jobs knew how to make Apple successful, and did so. However, it doesn't really change my point. Every company has a founder that makes it successful.

      I do agree that the MBAs of America seem obsessed for the ultimate excel formula that turns any company into the next Apple. I think the reason Jobs was successful was that in the end he was powerful enough to override the MBAs.

  6. Wait wait wait wait... by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

    I did only read the summary of the patent because I go into a brain-dead-mode if I have to read such English....but did they just patent drawing onto a framebuffer using floats instead of ints?

    1. Re:Wait wait wait wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes.

      What is claimed is:

      1. A rendering circuit comprising: a geometry processor; a rasterizer coupled to the geometry processor, the rasterizer comprising a scan converter having an input and an output, the scan converter being configured to scan convert data received at the input, at least a portion of the data received at the input being in floating point format, the scan converter being configured to output data from the output, at least a portion of the data from the output being floating point data; and a frame buffer coupled to the rasterizer for storing a plurality of color values in floating point format.

      2. The rendering circuit as defined by claim 1 wherein the scan converter is configured to scan convert on an entirely floating point basis.

      3. The rendering circuit as defined by claim 1 wherein the data received at the input comprises color data.

      4. The rendering circuit as defined by claim 1 wherein the rasterizer further includes a floating point texture circuit.

      5. The rendering circuit as defined by claim 1 wherein the rasterizer operates entirely on a floating point basis.

      6. The rendering circuit as defined by claim 1 further comprising a circuit board coupled with the geometry processor, rasterizer, and frame buffer.

      7. A rendering circuit comprising: a rasterizer for performing a rasterization process, at least a portion of the rasterization process performed in a floating point format; and a floating point frame buffer coupled to the rasterizer for storing a plurality of floating point color values.

      8. The rendering circuit as defined by claim 7 wherein the floating point color values are read out from the frame buffer in the floating point format for display.

      9. The rendering circuit as defined by claim 7 wherein the rasterization process is performed on an entirely floating point basis.

      10. The rendering circuit as defined by claim 7 wherein the rasterizer comprises an input and an output, the rasterizer configured to process floating point data received at the input, the rasterizer configured to output floating point data at the output.

      They just described an 'apparatus' that uses a rasterizer, geometry processor, and frame buffer (i.e. a GPU), the only specific of which is that it uses floating point data (somehow repeated over 10 claims).

      Fuck this.

    2. Re:Wait wait wait wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep...i read the whole patent.

      hahaha

    3. Re:Wait wait wait wait... by rolfeb · · Score: 2

      Sigh. Independent claim 7 doesn't even have a geometry processor. Filed in 2011, so it's not like it was a good idea from way back.

      It's hard to see how this differs from one of their own cited prior arts patent, US7518615, which contains, for example:

      > 1. A computer system, comprising: a processor for performing geometric calculations on a plurality of vertices of a primitive; a rasterization
      > circuit coupled to the processor that rasterizes the primitive according to a scan conversion process which operates using a floating point
      > format; and a frame buffer coupled to the rasterization circuit for storing a plurality of color values in the floating point format.

    4. Re:Wait wait wait wait... by maroberts · · Score: 2

      Its a continuation patent, so I suspect it inherits the filing date of the original patents in exchange for a shorter duration.

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

    5. Re:Wait wait wait wait... by IceNinjaNine · · Score: 1

      Sigh. Independent claim 7 doesn't even have a geometry processor.

      Sigh.. won't somebody please think of the rasters?

    6. Re:Wait wait wait wait... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      US 7518615 is NOT prior art. It is a different patent based on the same original application as this patent. It's common to split patent applications into multiple patents during the application process to accelerate issuance of parts of the original application.

    7. Re:Wait wait wait wait... by hazydave · · Score: 1

      Sure looks like some monkey business here. This patent was filed in 2011, but it's actually a filed as a continuation. Here's the critical bit:

      This patent application is a continuation of co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/632,262, filed Dec. 7, 2009, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/168,578, filed Jul. 7, 2008, and entitled DISPLAY SYSTEM HAVING FLOATING POINT RASTERIZATION AND FLOATING POINT FRAMEBUFFERING, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/614,363, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,518,615, filed Jul. 12, 2000, and entitled, DISPLAY SYSTEM HAVING FLOATING POINT RASTERIZATION AND FLOATING POINT FRAMEBUFFERING, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/098,041, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,650,327, filed Jun. 16, 1998, and entitled, DISPLAY SYSTEM HAVING FLOATING POINT RASTERIZATION AND FLOATING POINT FRAMEBUFFERING, the disclosures of which are incorporated herein, in their entireties, by reference.

      In short, they get to claim a priority date going back to 1998, as long as at least one patent application in the chain was in pending status when the next was filed, going all the way back to 1998. And that at least one inventor is listed in common. And, of course, that this filing (8144158 is all about the format of their floating point) is really an elaboration on what they did back in 1998, and not something different.

      This is a really long time for this kind of thing... and that's just what they were after, of course. At least, under the new patent laws, the filing date and 20 year life are based on the actual filing date. Under the old system, you were given 17 years from the date of grant, so it was common to try to delay the grant date as long as possible, so that the things you did "way back when" were now commonplace. A legal submarine patent. This long string of continuations amounts to much the same kind of thing, though of course, they can't claim something different. For example, the 32-bit or 64-bit floating point units in current GPUs are probably not infringing, unless they derive directly from this design (unless it's determined that the FPU design is in itself obvious, or already covered by prior art). This also means that the 8144158 patent will expire in 2018 along with 6650327, not in 2031, which would be the expiration date of a new patent applied for in 2011.

      From the troll company's viewpoint, it could well be that they found a bunch of GPUs out in the market using a design very similar to that of the old SGI GPUs, and decided to file this to enhance their case, which again, is just dandy as long as at least one patent in that long chain was still pending at the time this one was filed. It could be the defeat of the '327 patent against ATi illustrated their weakness going up against other devices.

      I wondered who they're specifically after:

      Apple iPhone: PowerVR (all. SGX543MP2 in the iPhone 4S)
      HTC EVO4G: Qualcomm Adreno 200
      LG Thrill: PowerVR SGX540
      RIM Torch: Qualcomm Adreno 205
      Samsung Galaxy S: PowerVR SGX540
      Samsung Galaxy SII: ARM MALI-400
      Sony Xperia Play: Qualcomm Adreno 205

      So that's basically every GPU maker in a mobile device other than nVidia. And not all that interesting that Qualcomm's on the list, since they're now licensing PowerVR anyway, and so Adreno may be relegated to economy devices, or gone completely in short time. This was probably critical to Qualcomm's reputation, with the Krait-based S4 SOCs, they'll otherwise have the fastest per-CPU-core ARM on the market, at least until A15s are out. No need to hamstring that with the weakest GPU... but I digress.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
  7. Hahahahahahahahaha... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahahaha! Who saw that coming?

  8. These corporations are so cute by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

    Such a gluttonous appetite for money; they remind me of two sea cucumbers trying to devour each other.

    --
    Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
  9. Look at the patent date by MisterMidi · · Score: 1

    Looks like the patent was issued only yesterday.

    1. Re:Look at the patent date by Quintin+Stone · · Score: 1

      I saw the same thing. This makes no sense if true.

      --

      "Prejudice is wrong; you should hate everyone the same."

  10. Good by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

    Keep on suing each other, boys! Sue, sue, sue! That'll teach you a lesson!

  11. Take something already done... by mallydobb · · Score: 1

    and slap the label, "on a phone" or "for a mobile device", and PRESTO! You have a new, patentable use for the obvious.

    --
    --- b2b.mallaidh.org | www.mallaidh.org | www.kidsalive.org/article/kahlil-pfaff/
  12. shitty patent by gl4ss · · Score: 2

    really. using 16 bit floating point to hold color.

    "yo we patented opengl with 16bit floating point in the 2000's". should be fucking obvious. increasing it to 32bit and 64bit too and other number holding formats.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    1. Re:shitty patent by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      32 bits is obvious. The half precision floating point format was actually quite neat. It's pretty much useless for anything except graphics, but with 16 bit floats you can represent a far more useful range of colours (for humans) than with 16 bit integers and get a rendering quality that is much closer to 32-bit floats than to 8-bit integers. Maybe not deserving of a patent, but it was considered pretty clever at the time. It made it into OpenGL ES, because it was useful for saving memory on small-footprint devices.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:shitty patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sort of. 32 bits is not obvious. The IEEE standard for this stuff is actually pretty fucking complicated once you realize how much numerical analysis goes into the design. IEEE standardized on a set of formats, and half float is just a variant on those (e.g. the exponent bias is still 2^(E-1)-1). I templatized this for a compiler once - you could have a float with any number of mantissa bits and any number of exponent bits. Shit, should have patented it.

      Plus, this patent is not a patent on half float, it's a patent on using floating-point AT ALL within a GPU. Talk about homesteading the noosphere :)

    3. Re:shitty patent by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      It's just floating point with a different size mantissa/exponent. Not creative or novel in any meaningful way. Certainly not worthy of a patent.

      --
      No sig today...
    4. Re:shitty patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      32 bits is obvious. The half precision floating point format was actually quite neat.

      ...except that there were loads of earlier 16-bit floating-point formats. e.g. 3Dfx

    5. Re:shitty patent by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Shit, should have patented it.

      Just publish it so no one else does.

    6. Re:shitty patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please share that template Master Jedi.

    7. Re:shitty patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, it's not a C++ template, it's literally a struct in the compiler's type system with entries for numMantissaBits, numExponentBits, bHasSign, and so forth. From that I can load and unpack a value into a float, and repack (with rounding) into a bitfield. All this was done in the code generation layer using psuedo-ops. The approach does suffer from double-rounding but it's the best you can do given the hardware.

    8. Re:shitty patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A GPU is a CPU with a slant for graphic functionality, removing some of the generic processing ability. There is nothing special about putting code into an IC. The benefit is performance when viewing the whole system at the expense of flexibility, certainly nothing worth patenting, seeing as every EE would end up doing it roughly the same, just as programmers will tend toward a limited number of implementations of a given task.

    9. Re:shitty patent by Theaetetus · · Score: 1

      32 bits is obvious. The half precision floating point format was actually quite neat. It's pretty much useless for anything except graphics, but with 16 bit floats you can represent a far more useful range of colours (for humans) than with 16 bit integers and get a rendering quality that is much closer to 32-bit floats than to 8-bit integers. Maybe not deserving of a patent, but it was considered pretty clever at the time.

      The latter is the standard, though. Patents aren't granted to innovative, nonobvious solutions that are sufficiently awesome to be "deserving," because that would be an arbitrary standard and would violate the requirements of due process (the PTO being a quasi-judicial body). Instead, the question is just whether they're novel and nonobvious, and if something is pretty clever, then it doesn't matter whether it cures cancer, renders better fog, or makes an online shopping experience slightly faster. Such questions of worthiness are better left for the market to decide - if I patent a machine that twiddles my fingers for me, not only is no one going to buy a license, no one's going to infringe.

    10. Re:shitty patent by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Yes, it should be, however that is not what the patent claimed.

      Claim 1:

      A rendering circuit comprising: a geometry processor; a rasterizer coupled to the geometry processor, the rasterizer comprising a scan converter having an input and an output, the scan converter being configured to scan convert data received at the input, at least a portion of the data received at the input being in floating point format, the scan converter being configured to output data from the output, at least a portion of the data from the output being floating point data; and a frame buffer coupled to the rasterizer for storing a plurality of color values in floating point format.

      In other words this patent covers a very specific hardware architecture that happens to support floating point data. It ISN'T a generic patent on use of floating point in graphics processing like many commenters seem to be assuming.

    11. Re:shitty patent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as if that will stop a patent.

    12. Re:shitty patent by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      yeah I did skim through it.

      Which is why the yo line is "opengl with xxxxx". as in opengl as used in modern cards/how modern cards are done.

      it's not really specific. nor novel, given the dates.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  13. I'll be rich! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I should patent the erroneous serving of mobile version of a web page in desktop browser so I can sue Slashdot every time they do it to me.

  14. Prior art by cheaphomemadeacid · · Score: 2

    So, im pretty sure there exists prior art for putting a . behind a number to mark some fraction of a number

  15. Actually it's hardware+floating point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually it's dedicated hardware plus floating point is their claim. Floating point with rendering was pre-existing (the fixed point arithmetic they did away with was a way of speeding that up).

    So in essence they patented doing what was done before only on hardware not intended to do other stuff.

    Pity they couldn't find a market, but patent trolling adds nothing of value to society and just adds an economic burden on the viable companies.

    1. Re:Actually it's hardware+floating point by jbolden · · Score: 1

      They couldn't find a market? SGI was a huge player for many years 1981-1999 they were usually the 2nd or 3rd biggest workstation company in the USA. I used to joke about Apple during the 10.2-10.4 days "bringing SGI technology to the masses".

  16. Just plain ridiculous by X10 · · Score: 1

    This shows how ridiculous it is to allow companies to file patents on simple things and keep them for 20 years. A patent should protect an inventor from copycats, and it shouldn't do more than just that. In this case, making the hardware took a few months, making money before the competition did took one or two years, so the patent shouldn't have been valid for more than, say, two years.
    We need a serious reform of patent law, worldwide.

    --
    no, I don't have a sig
    1. Re:Just plain ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We need a serious reform of patent law, worldwide.

      Nope, we need a serious reform of the clusterfuck that is the US patent system.
      Other countries are doing well, and in the EU you can't patent software.

  17. So what is this patent on? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    I find patents difficult to read. They're written in such an abstract way.

    However, my interpretation is that this seems to be the idea of storing data as floating point, and operating on it using floating point hardware. Surely this sort of thing has been around for a while.

  18. Re:Fear not, rest of world. Patent trolling is pro by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

    So patent trolls are terrrrrists? Interesting theory, let's see...

    Hate us for our freedom to produce and innovate? Check.
    Cripple the economy? Check.
    Try to influence politics by their practices? Check.

    I think you're on to something here...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Previously sued ATI by chrb · · Score: 2

    This isn't the first time SGI has sued over these type of patents, see Slashdot 2006, and the 2010 ruling in SILICON GRAPHICS V ATI TECHNOLOGIES

    1. Re:Previously sued ATI by chrb · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here's an interesting article from Nov 2010 Embattled Silicon Graphics Portfolio Now On The Warpath

      Yesterday, thanks to PriorSmart‘s Daily Litigation Alerts, I noticed Dell, HP and Lenovo all targeted in the same Delaware patent lawsuit by Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. The titles of the two patents at issue were both “Display system having floating point rasterization and floating point framebuffering” (6,650,327 and 7,518,615). It sounded a bit familiar, so after a little searching, I found out that, sure enough, just a few days before the same company filed suit on the same 2 patents against Apple, Nintendo, Sony, Toshiba and Acer in the Southern District of New York. That said, I still wasn’t satisfied that I had correctly identified the source of my recollection. (You don’t often forget a term like “rasterization.”)

      After a little more searching, I came across an older case, Silicon Graphics v. ATI Technologies, which had gone to trial in Madison, Wisconsin in 2008. The case was a close to a total loss for SGI, with Judge Barbara Crabb ruling that co-defendants ATI and AMD did not infringe the ’327 Patent, and that both defendants were authorized for certain uses under a license to Microsoft. So why are these new lawsuits being filed, and who is Graphics Properties Holdings? Graphics Properties is essentially what’s left of SGI after filing bankruptcy last year. (That’s right, again.) As for why these former SGI patents are now being asserted again, a court of appeals decision from earlier this year may help explain. Chief Judge Rader, in a unanimous opinion, undid just about everything that Judge Crabb had done.

      Because the district court erroneously construed two of the three contested limitations in the ’327 patent this court vacates the summary judgment on claims with those terms. This court also determines that the district court erred with respect to the effect of the Microsoft license on direct infringement. * * *

      [As a result,]this court vacates the district court’s non-infringement ruling and remands for consideration in light of the correct construction.

      In other words, because Judge Crabb misinterpreted the meaning of critical terms in the patent, the ultimate conclusion of non-infringement was incorrect. Specifically, the phrase “a rasterization process which operates on a floating point format” was interpreted by Judge Crabb as requiring that the process “as a whole” needs to operate on a floating point format. It was undisputed that the accused products performed some rasterization processes on a floating point format, but others using fixed point values. Based on this construction, Judge Crabb (correctly) concluded that the accused products did not exactly match the claimed invention.

      However, on appeal, Judge Rader noted that the specification recites a number of different rasterization processes, and that the patent claim uses the indefinite article a when describing rasterization on a floating point format. The correct construction, according to Judge Rader, is that “one or more of the rasterization processes (e.g., scan conversion, color, texture, fog, shading) operate on a floating point format.” Because it was also admitted that some of the rasterization process did use a floating point format, a judge simply can’t deny the patent holder its opportunity to prove infringement of the patent to the jury.

      The contrast between these two constructions is dramatic, as potential design around opportunities for Judge Crabb’s narrower interpretation are significantly easier than for Judge Rader’s broader construction. Having emerged from this first battle with a broader interpretation of the patent claims, Graphics Properties has apparently decided to turn up the heat and pursue an even broader class of targets, including PC and game console manufacturers, and to do it on multiple fronts.

  20. Enough of this by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    Simply shoot the lawyers and the "Graphics Properties Holdings" to death. This already gone too far.

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
  21. Re:Fear not, rest of world. Patent trolling is pro by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

    >and ate themselves
    Each other, surely? Or do things get *really* bad?

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  22. did anyone say prior art? ;-) by proclus · · Score: 1

    Look at the date on the patent. There is a massive amount of prior art. This is a silly patent and lawsuit.

    Regards,
    proclus
    http://www.gnu-darwin.org/

    1. Re:did anyone say prior art? ;-) by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      Think again, the priority date is 1998.

  23. N64 by SGI by tepples · · Score: 1

    Haven't we had graphics using floating point numbers since like, the Nintendo 64 days?

    Nintendo 64 had an SGI chipset. It was essentially a stripped-down SGI workstation in the same way that the original Xbox would be a stripped-down PC. This patent is owned by the remnants of SGI that weren't sold to Rackable.

  24. must be valid claims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

    they weren't filed in marshall, texas.

  25. SGI patent portfolio by jbolden · · Score: 1

    I don't think there is anyone who is going to question SGI's degree of innovation or importance in the industry. I'd hope that most of their patents are expired or near expired because turning the company into a patent troll is like necrophilia, defaming the body of the dead to satisfy the living. That being said, there could be a lot of innovations there we all take for granted and this could be really harmful. I sincerely hope that they lose while being very afraid they'll win.

    1. Re:SGI patent portfolio by VortexCortex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think there is anyone who is going to question SGI's degree of innovation or importance in the industry.

      What the fuck am I reading? Did you read their patent?! There's a big difference between being Innovative, and being the first iteration. It's sure great to be the latter, but it shouldn't grant you monopolies over the iterative shit you do. You, sir, are seriously WRONG. I, for one, question SGI's degree of "innovation" considering it was primarily obvious iteration. Furthermore, I put it to you that if SGI didn't exist, someone else would have done it just as well, possibly even better. Ergo, they weren't at all more important than the next guy.

      "Genius" isn't. Hey, what's the symbol for an ingenious idea? A light bulb? Edison's "invention" was iterative. Two years prior there was an improved incandescent light in a vacuum patent in the European patent office... It wasn't some remarkable leap of insight, Edison just tried stuff until it worked! Elisha Gray and Gram Bell BOTH invented the telephone i.e. using mercury as a variable resistor to put voice down the line that we were already using for communication (telegraph) -- Bell was AN HOUR sooner to the patent office, Gray went to the poorhouse. It was clearly ITERATION. People knew that you could detect sound waves and people knew you could communicate via wire. Are you saying that the twain would never have met if it weren't for a single Marvellous Brilliant Genius? WRONG! If the problem is important enough it WILL be solved (if it's solvable). SGI was first. SO WHAT. Edison was first to make a marketable bulb. We'd still have incandescent bulbs today if he had been struck and killed by the fabled lightning... We'd have had the Telephone AN HOUR LATER if Mr Bell had never existed.

      We've increased the population of humans H in the problem space to the point that any monopoly on an idea nearly immediately harms independent "inventors". The average technician skilled in the art has a chance of creating the solution S. The number of new ie "patentable" solutions P to a problem in a given time interval T is P = SH/T
      It's plain to see that as H increases, so to does the number of patentable solutions.
      ( This is because THERE IS NO TEST FOR OBVIOUSNESS -- The PTO does not employ individuals adequately skilled in the arts [these folk are WORKING in their fields]! Consequently, the PTO just ensures that the forms are signed, grants patents over anything that's not already in their Database and let's the court sort it out )

      The problem is that there are actually VASTLY more people just getting shit done and realising that their work is iterative, than there are dumb lazy fucks who can't think for themselves so they look through the patent system database to see who's ideas they can use -- THE LATTER DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST! Everyone just solves their own damn problems rather than pay Patent Tax! The system is useless! Since EVERYONE is some degree of a Genius, Geniuses aren't special, otherwise we would actually search for patented solutions to use. In some fields where the research cost is high, you may do this, but in Software?! It's just Math, and Math is EASY.

      Patents reward investment in research OF ONLY THE FIRST RESEARCHER. It's moronic to think that an idea monopoly won't harm THE ENTIRE REST OF THE FIELD as they're taxed for not getting there first or have to work around an obvious solution to avoid legal fees to invalidate P. It's even more retarding to get on your knees and worship the first iterating company as if it's the ONLY one in the field because it can pay for more H to produce P in less T. If you can pay for more H, then you get more P in less T; It's quite simple.

      The bar for "Genius" has been lowered to average Joe engineer. It's your style of Mental Fellatio that's to blame for our current state of affairs...

    2. Re:SGI patent portfolio by jbolden · · Score: 1

      OK lets list some innovations of theirs:

      first use of integrated frame buffering for graphics
      first use of multibus which brought the price of workstations down to the $5k-10k level capable of doing work like real time audio
      first use of floating point accelerator technology for graphics
      first use of multiple hardware graphics accelerators
      first system capable of handling 3 video streams simultaneously, essentially inventing video mixing.
      most of the ideas from ACE are used in today's supercomputers.

      Now the rest of your post is that invention is mostly a matter of being at the right place at the right time. I'd agree SGI fits the bill. They were the workstation manufacturer working closely with visualization and sound. But the innovations you see on your computer today were quite often first created by them.

  26. Exactly how dim are you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So patent trolls are terrrrrists? Interesting theory, let's see...

    Of course not. Patent trolls just help the enemy see its objectives sooner (the destruction what they call the "great Satan", i.e., you).

    Wake up and smell the coffee. The usa is on its way down economically, technologically, industrially and militarily (to name a few) and world opinion of the usa is plummeting fast (note that many times more people live outside the red, white and blue walls than inside your prison and we're less impressed by you every day). Obummer turned out to be a right-wing lackey - the fix is in.

    Do you seriously think that internal patent trolling benefits the usa? Then you're either with the 'terrists' or your a rich bastard. Either way, you're an enemy to the usa, so do the country a favour and drop dead.

    Anything fools inside the walls do to help expedite the process of the destruction of the crumbling usa (and patent trolling certainly qualifies by countering productivity and stifling innovation, leading to loss of science, technology and industry) aids the 'terrists' in their objective of destroying the once-great american empire.

    Then again, if you're an example of an american, the world would be better off without you, so carry on.

    Let's see...

    Hate you? Check. I hate all terrists, their aids (where you fit in) and their abettors.
    Hate america? Check. You do.
    Brainwashed dipstick or rich? Check. You are.
    Tired of trying to tell total fools what they're killing themselves and their country? Fucking right I am.

    You've already taken far more of my time than you'll ever merit.

    Goodbye forvever, and piss off.

    1. Re:Exactly how dim are you? by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      Wow! What a reaction. These angry comments that sometimes come from seemingly nowhere... really do baffle me. And they're often responses to a spot of light humour too. It amazes me that some people are really that full of anger.

  27. This is stupid by msobkow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is one of the stupidest patents I've ever heard of.

    Even back in the fall of 1986 at University of Saskatchewan in my graphics class, the algorithms we started with were presented as floating point algorithms. We were then shown the integer variants on those algorithms, which we were told bluntly were used only because they were faster than floating point emulation.

    So they got a patent for doing something that we were told not to do purely for performance reasons, not for any reason of logic or functionality. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind this whole patent should be overturned.

    And, yes, I was heavily into computer graphics at the time. I even was a contributing publisher to a paper on the "Fast Line Clipping" algorithm, which really, in retrospect, was not so much an innovation as an example of a very advanced special case of loop and conditional unrolling that some of the more advanced modern compilers can probably to automatically at this present time. If you want to check out that crufty old article, you'll have a better chance of finding it by searching for Yang or Pospisil, the professor and grad student for the project; I was just a fourth year programmer at the time.

    No, we didn't patent our algorithm. Back then the point of research and development was to learn and share, not to squat and sue.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:This is stupid by StormReaver · · Score: 2

      This is one of the stupidest patents I've ever heard of.

      This statement is equally valid for all software patents. There is nothing in this software patent that is any stupider than anything in any other software patent. They are all equally stupid, and should never have been granted to begin with.

      All it took to bring this country's creative innovation to a screeching halt was one stupid appeals court decision that math and algorithms were patentable.

  28. I want this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to patent an additional opposable digit on my hand. As soon as the right birth defect occurs, whammo! Billionaire.

  29. Well Said. by jmactacular · · Score: 1

    Agree completely.

  30. Re:Troll: A challenge 2U from myself... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OMG OMG OMG Hosts File!

    OMG OMG OMG !!!!

    HOSTS FILE!!!!

    Z O M G!!!

    It will save us all !!!111oneoneone

    AmIrite?

  31. The New Pawn brokers by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

    They buy a property low and then milk it for all they can get. They are true red neck entrepreneurs. Patents are there to protect the creators/inventor and their family to make a reasonable profit on the idea for a limited number of years. What the "owner"/"entrepreneurs" have done is take that idea, bundle the IP as a commodity and buy and sell it on the secondary market. Very different than the intent of the law and creates a system that does not favor the inventor. Much like the pay day loan business, and just as socially acceptable.

    1. Re:The New Pawn brokers by Matheus · · Score: 1

      When do we get the reality TV show!? "Pawn Stars -- USPTO" and "Pawn Stars -- Wall Street". We've already seen plenty of activity from both and it's popular as ever! There's plenty of nuts doing the work to make the show interesting too. Gotta sell this crap to the History channel fast!

    2. Re:The New Pawn brokers by Tweezak · · Score: 1

      I have a patent pending on that idea. You'll be hearing from my lawyer.

  32. When did mathematics become patentable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I patent the numbers 3, 6 and 9, oh and the letter e. This message brought to you by the letter e.

    1. Re:When did mathematics become patentable? by hazydave · · Score: 1

      It happens... it shouldn't. But check out the notorious CADtrack XOR patent (US Patent 4,197,590). CADtrack was some kind of CAD company from way back, that emerged in the 80s as a patent troll. They had a patent on using the XOR operation to draw and undraw a cursor on a bitmapped screen. This should have completely failed the test of obviousness... I did exactly this as a kid of 17 on my first home computer, an Exidy Sorcerer (it didn't have full bitmapped graphics, but it had programmable character memory that could be used to simulate some game-class bitmapped displays with some cleverness). And at that point, I was mostly just self-taught "in the art", having read many issues of BYTE, Kilobaud, and Creative Computing. There should be a "kid rule"... if a High Schooler or below figured out your thing independently, you lose your patent.

      A buddy of mine worked with the lawyers at Commodore on this, as we were being sued. He resolved to patent AND and OR... I don't think he could come up with the cash, though.

      --
      -Dave Haynie
  33. SGI: Going the way of SCO? by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    I wonder if Darl McBride is working there now.

    Seriously, any time the word "Holdings" shows up in a company's name, run like hell.

    1. Re:SGI: Going the way of SCO? by sl3xd · · Score: 1

      Graphics Properties Holdings != SGI.

      SGI still exists, so claiming that it is "formerly SGI" is a load of crap. It's about as absurd a claim as to say that they are "formerly Microsoft," or "formerly Sun."

      I seriously doubt Darl McBride works there. He was just a little ahead of the curve; the real wave is still coming.

      --
      -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
  34. Not SGI, nor can it claim to be "formerly SGI" by sl3xd · · Score: 3, Informative

    The claim that "Graphics Properties Holdings" is the former SGI is wrong.

    SGI still exists, and has nothing to do with "Graphics Properties Holdings."

    SGI had a troubled history in the dot com bust, and sold off many assets to keep itself afloat. SGI stopped making their own graphics hardware years ago; a number of patents were sold at the time, apparently a few made it to patent trolls. The current "Cray" was another case of SGI selling the trademarks and brands to Tera Computer Company - SGI kept most of the Cray engineers.

    Silicon Graphics Inc. then died a slow death, going into bankruptcy twice before being bought by Rackable, which kept most of the SGI employees, and renamed itself SGI.

    SGI still exists more or less unchanged from the SGI of yesteryear (though without MIPS, IRIX, or graphics workstations) - and is not part of "Graphics Properties Holdings."

    --
    -- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
    1. Re:Not SGI, nor can it claim to be "formerly SGI" by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the explanation. Someone mod him informative!

  35. Enough of IP Zombies by hlavac · · Score: 1

    Patents need to die with the filing company, not be trasferrable to a patent troll.

  36. patent zombies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First a company dies, then it comes back from the dead as a Patent Zombie, attacking anything still moving. Worst case scenario, it kills off other companies that actually produce things and they, too, become zombies.