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.

Comments

Most Shrinkwraps DON'T Matter

[ewhac]

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:

• GPL: "You may receive this software and do anything you want with it. But if you want to make and distribute copies (or derivative works thereof), you must agree to these terms before we'll grant you a license."
• Typical shrinkwrap: "You must agree to these ridiculous conditions, limitations, and disclaimers, or you can't have this software at all.

(Which one is the product of the more mature mind is left as an exercise for the reader :-).)

Schwab

Here is the URL

[tamyrlin]

(Found this one on bluesnews)
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/990611/ca_3dfx_fi_1. html

/Andreas

Here's the URL

[alta]

http://fam ulus.msnbc.com/famuluscom/pr-newswire06-11-094630. asp?sym=TDFX

Ill-mannered, Spoiled Children

[ewhac]

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

Er "changing the sdk"...?

[Masem]

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.)

Re:Bad 3dfx, bad!

[Jburkholder]

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)

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 ;-) ) because of a handful of games he has for his voodoo1 that he doesn't even really play anymore? (oversimplification to make a point)

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).