Slashdot Mirror
3dfx sues Creative Labs over Glide
MztrBlack was the first to write us with the news that 3dfx has officially sued Creative Labs for "breaching a licensing agreement" and infringing on 3dfx copyrights by using 3dfx Glide Source Code into Unified, the techno designed to run Glide-only stuff on Creative TNT and TNT2 based systems. This violates the license because it prohibits the use and modification of any 3dfx source code.
Sorry, but there are some things you can't agree to, even if you actually sign a contract (a crucial step that most shrinkwrap "agreements" conveniently neglect).
For example: You can't sign yourself into slavery. Slavery is illegal in this country, period. The slaver could wave your signed contract until doomsday; the court would still strike the term as illegal and unenforceable.
The problem here is that software vendors are trying to invent rights for themselves out of thin air (for no good reason that I can see), and get you to acknowledge and agree to observe those rights through the highly dubious mechanic of a shrinkwrap "agreement". It is therefore left to the courts to decide which invented rights are legitimate, and which are unenforceable under various laws. There's a lot of precedent to suggest that 3Dfx is going to lose.
As for the GPL, that's rather different. GPLed code is copyrighted. Thus, you don't have the right to make copies. However, if you fulfill the conditions stipulated in the GPL, then the GPL grants you a license, and you may make and distribute copies. If you don't fulfill those conditions (distributing copies without source code), then the GPL does not grant you permission to make copies, and you are therefore guilty of copyright infringement.
Note the subtle distinction:
(Which one is the product of the more mature mind is left as an exercise for the reader :-).)
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Apart from the fact that 3dfx has a lousy attitude, UltraTNT2 offers 32 bit and AGP texturing. The only bad thing is you can't play your old glide-only games anymore....
Creative tried fixing that so people wouldn't have to buy/keep an V2 along with their UltraTNT2 and that is the ONLY reason 3dfx are suing. A reason why a V2 next to your TNT2 is a bad thing you ask ?
1. Graphic Quality. Even if you don't own a TNT2 or Matrox, the difference between directly on the card or looped through the V2 is clearly visible at 1600x1200.
2. Heat. Everybody who felt how hot a V2 gets knows this is a real problem.
3. It's another unavailable PCI slot (or two).
So you can see, apart from idealogical reasons (API's should be public domain IMHO), unified whould acctually offer better quality over V2.
BTW the official URL to the article is http://www.3dfx.com/view.asp?IOID=248
This one is where Tom's Hardware rated the major 3D cards, including a few TNT2 cards, Voodoo3 and ATI
I got that quote from www.duh-2000.com, which
claims the original quote came from a Vanity
Fair interview, so it sounds like a serious
statement that probably came out wrong in
the brevity of the interview.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
(Found this one on bluesnews). html
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/990611/ca_3dfx_fi_1
/Andreas
http://fam ulus.msnbc.com/famuluscom/pr-newswire06-11-094630. asp?sym=TDFX
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
>As an aside, does anyone have any recommendations for TNT or TNT2 based cards they have working under Linux, and if so, what issues (if any) did you have?
Sure do! I got a Diamond Viper 770 Ultra (TNT2) a couple weeks ago and it really shines. (running a Creative Labs V2 before and a Riva 128 before that). Linux support still has a way to go, but is shaping up nicely. I did just get the new Mesa/GLX stuff and the 3D is pretty slow (not really playable in q3 but ok for q2) but the 2d is very strong. (I like being able to finally drag and resize windows at 1024x768).
In windows the card performs exceptionally well in 3D and I hope this is a good indication of how it will fare once Linux support matures.
A parking lot is a physical object. An API is not. If you want a comparison with "old" technology, the "interface" you use to drive a car would be more appropriate. Sure, the steering wheel and pedals may by patented (specific implementation) but the interface itself is not. That's all an API is, an interface on how two entities communicate.
Should API's be protectable like this? I don't think so. Should specific implementations? Sure, if you are going to be a closed source company I don't see anything wrong with protecting your specific implementation. If Creative used 3Dfx's source code (specific implimentation) in their drivers and their agreement prohibited them from doing so, then I think they should be prosecuted. However, if they simply looked at the API (header files will do I'm sure) and wrote their own implementation I don't think they should be held liable at all.
I guess it depends on if you are an open source advocate or not. If you believe that ideas such as API's or algorithms should be "ownable" or if ownership should be limited to physical items and specific implementations of general ideas.
So, in response to your question "How is it that you can't believe 3dfx is dictating how THEIR api is used." my response is:
Because I don't believe API's are property that should be protected under the law. If you're question was concerning their specific implementation of the API, then I would probably agree with you.
Changing my car example above, it's more like the "API" or interface between the wheels and the car. You're saying that the API or interface between those two components is protected. You're saying that someone can not make a new wheel that might perform better simply by putting the appropriate number of holes in the right spots for the lug nuts (following the API specs). That's rediculous.
API's are nothing like parking lots.
I can't believe people are complaining because 3dfx is enforcing its license contracts.
How would those people feel if some big corporation violated the terms of the GPL for its own profit?
The reason the rules work is that everyone is bound by them.
The "binary-only glx driver" was really just the speculation of some people a little too pro-free-software for their own good. Matrox hasn't said anything to that effect, though they won't give the specs, so it'd have to be binary to use WARP. Seems like binary microcode (not the same as a binary driver) is the most likely release, but that's just me guessing too :)
This would not be the case unless they obtain preliminary injunctive relief. Absent an injunction, defendants are free to continue as they choose, albeit perhaps subject to potentially increased liability for willful infringement in some cases.
This is not to say that I anticipate that plaintiff would not prevail upon seeking preliminary injunctive relief, but its never a lock -- preliminary injunctive relief is an extrarordinary remedy precisely for the reasons anticipated in the note to which I am responding.
That's how I see 3Dfx over this issue. I really wish they would pull the broomstick out of their bum and realize that they have already lost the battle with OpenGL.
Back when 3Dfx was the only 3D accelerator in town, using GLIDE exclusively made sense. Now it's suicidal. If you're starting work on a new game, you use OpenGL. Period. It's cross-platform, and the performance is good and getting better thanks to everybody fighting over Quake frame rates.
I also believe that 3Dfx has no legitimate right to dictate how the GLIDE API may be used. That's a bit like Dennis Ritchie announcing that the C programming language can only be used on AT&T-built computers.
3Dfx should just drop this issue and compete on the merits of their products.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
From my understanding of what Unified does, it is *NOT* Yet Another Glide Library, but instead merely maps the calls that a game would send to Glide into calls to Direct3d. This type of interface can be derived from the docs of the sdk without having the sdk itself, which implies a cleanroom implementation and absolutely no modification to the Glide SDK itself. (The Unified FAQ is located at http://www.soundblaster.co m/hotgraphics/unified/faq.html for those interested.)
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
So you condone stealing proprietary source code and support those that breach contracts? Wake
up dude, reverse engineering is one thing, but
outright STEALING code is just bad news. IF this
is true about Creative then this'll be a bad scar
on them for the rest of their lives.
-Burt
I know this is an old thread and you probably won't read this, but I just noticed. That message was old even when I posted last time. Update is that they're working with two non-Matrox (you didn't mean NVidia, did you?) community developers and that nothing has been said yet officially. The two guys seem to be leaning towards microcode (everyone seems to be ignoring that email)
Ugh. I hate it when people throw out phrases like like this because they sound impressive.
Look - 3dfx is not a member of the open source community. The hardware is proprietary, the API (GLide) is proprietary, and the SDK is released under a license which does not permit you to modify and redistribute the code under any circumstances.
If you want to criticize 3dfx, fine, but they've never had any pretentions to open-sourcing their SDK, to my knowledge, and shouldn't be faulted for that.
Careful how you swing those allegations; you could put someone's eye out.
Creative, being fairly intelligent, probably clean-roomed the API. Further, their lawyers are no doubt confident that they will prevail over 3Dfx's baseless claims that 3Dfx has the right to dictate how the GLIDE API may be used. Otherwise, they would never have signed off on the release of the drivers in the first place.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Well, I agree that 3dfx looks bad here in the eyes of open-source advocates, but the merit of their lawsuit will be decided by other factors. (std disclaimer, IANAL)
;-) ) because of a handful of games he has for his voodoo1 that he doesn't even really play anymore? (oversimplification to make a point)
Like, what exactly is the licensing agreement with creative, what assets did creative allegedly misuse, what evidence is there to support this, and what damages is 3dfx likely to sustain as a result of the breach? (although I'm not sure if proof of damages is needed to prove breach of contract?)
Since most decent (current) games support either D3D or OGL, it seems safe to assume that only older games are "glide-only", no? Is the fear that little Johnnie will go and buy a Creative TNT2 instead of a Voodoo3 (I mean Banshee2
But on the other hand, if 3dfx has an iron-clad license and has source listings of Unified with their code in it, then shame on Creative for breaking their contract (and getting caught).
I may not like the idea of a company defending its proprietary API and closed source by going to court against a company I like that sells (IMO) a superior product, but that doesn't make 3dfx in the wrong. Just not likeable.
Now another issue entirely is what 3dfx hopes to gain from all this. Many in the gaming world have criticized 3dfx for resting on their laurels and not improving their product to support open standards and high-performance 32-bit rendering like, say... nVidia. Maybe this *is* just sour grapes and defending their turf, in which case, "BAD 3dfx, BAD". (another disclaimer: I own a Voodoo2 and two nVidia cards. The Riva 128 was only so so, but the TNT2 is _by far_ the coolest piece of hardware I have ever owned).
Keep up the 3dfx bashing guys. 3dfx is the only company that is either shipping or helping other people ship drivers for their hardware *right now* for DOS/Win/Mac/Linux/BeOS, etc. Hopefully, nVidia's foray into source code releases will push 3dfx to do the same.
Yup, keep up the bashing, and maybe 3dfx will be forced to compete =)
NVIDIA released X sources last week for their TNT and TNT2 accelerators for Linux, as well as OS/2 Warp, Win3.1, Win9x, WinNT, BeOS, and Linux drivers.
And NVIDIA has a better OpenGL driver.
And NVIDIA has more features on their cards than 3dfx...
The only reason to buy a 3dfx card is loyalty or price... and a TNT from Creative is only $80 or so anyway =)
-AS
-AS
*Pikachu*
Do not get me started about license "agreements." I regard them as an unethical legal fiction with absolutely no validity whatsoever. I have never agreed to the terms of any such contract, and continue to have no trouble obtaining commercial software. If you're bored, you can read my editorial on the subject.
Then why the spate of frivolous lawsuits, always, it seems, over GLIDE?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Incorrect.
APIs are not protectible intellectual property (and probably not "intellectual property" at all). 3Dfx is inventing rights out of thin air through its license "agreement". Sadly, contracts of this nature do not create intellectual property or rights therein. 3Dfx is simply indulging in bullying tactics.
The specifics of this case may be different, as Creative was obviously a source code licensee (with signed contracts and everything). We shall have to wait for the results of the discovery process to see what really happened. But your fundamental claim is incorrect: Inventors do not enjoy absolute rights over their inventions unless they keep them to themselves. Once you make it generally available to the public, the rules change.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Check out Tom's Hardware and Ace's Hardware for TNT2 reviews. As far as I remember, the Hercules cards were the best performers.