I bet that there is lots of stuff in Emacs that is patentable. How about this:
A method of creating a software application that is arbitrarily extensible by end-users. The application consists of a small "core" consisting mainly of an interpreted language processor and a small set of basic data-manipulation functions. The rest of the application is written in the interpreted language. The application contains a complete development environment for the interpreted language, so that users can develop and test new extensions while the application is running.
Other claims could include:
The ability to save these "extensions" on a hard drive for later use.
The ability of the application to "compile" these extensions into byte code for faster loading and execution.
The ability for users to download extensions written by others
The ability for the program to automatically include a large number of extensions as part of the install process.
The ability for the program to automatically download extensions from a standard library on the web.
Of course, the cool thing about this patent is that just about every application in Microsoft Office uses these techniques as well.
Almost everything that I've ever done that was clever was because of a collision between disparate skill sets. The broader your knowledge base is, I believe the less likely you'll run into blocks like this. I also include non-programming knowledge - especially other skills such as art, music, drafting, philosophy, etc.
Often the best way to get over a block is to learn a new language. My C++ programming style has been greatly influenced by my knowledge of Java and Python.
Also, I highly recommend learning UML (Unified Modeling Language).
I've read through most of the replies made so far, and most of them are the same tired arguments about who's interpretation is "right". These arguments have been repeated on the Debian licensing forum, the KDE licensing forum, Linux weekly news and elsewhere.
Could we PLEASE for a moment put aside the issue of who is right, and instead talk about what we are going to do? Maybe Debian's interpretation of the GPL/Qt incompatibility is legally sound, maybe it's not. Maybe the KDE group's opinion that there's no problem is correct, and maybe it isn't.
None of that is important. What is important is that we have two groups who are intractably set in their particular positions, with little or no hope that either side will change their minds.
Deadlock.
But -- that doesn't mean that nothing can be done.
I have a suggestion: It is possible to compromise on legal issues without admitting that you're wrong. For example, it would be possible (although tedious and time-consuming) for the KDE folks to add the requested exception to their license, even if they don't believe that it is legally necessary. Doing so would bring a wealth of benefits, IMHO, and wouldn't harm the KDE project at all, except for the loss of some time.
That is what the $3000 is for. Not to change their opinions about legal issues, but to initiate action. The $3000 is merely paying the KDE folks for the work involved in adding a feature, only in this case the feature is legal, not technical. The fact that none of the KDE people believe that they need this feature is beside the point.
Let me give you an example taken from Jewish religious teachings (Note: I'm not Jewish, I just find religions of all sorts interesting). There is this notion of a "hedge" or "fence" around God's law. That is, the law of God is visualized as a barrier which none may cross. So the elders of the society put up a human-made barrier in front of God's barrier so that no one will get anywhere near God's barrier. In other words, there is a human law which is stricter than God's law, so that no one will accidentally violate God's law.
In programming, we do this sort of thing all the time. Sure, we know that the operating system should manage memory and filehandles for us, but we bullet-proof and firewall our code just the same. Of couse, a purist might argue that such things aren't needed ("Why are you bothering to close those database cursors - the garbage collector does that for you. You're just adding uneeded redundancy!") but real programmers know that a little bit of redundancy and backup is a good thing.
So why should it be so objectionable to take the same approach with licensing. Contrary to many of the opinions stated here, licensing is important, just as ethics is important. Isn't it worth a little trouble to make sure that we dot all our i's and cross all our t's? Shouldn't we be absolutely sure that we get the effects we want?
I am a huge fan of both Debian and KDE. I want to see those two projects work together in accord with each other's principles (I was going to say "in harmony", but that would have been misinterpreted:-). I applaud Dr. Guenter Bechly's actions in this matter. In fact, if there were a "pool" set up for collecting additional funds for this reward, I would add money to it.
And PLEASE do not reply to this posting with statements such as "but it isn't necessary" or "KDE is wrong" or "Debian is wrong" or "it doesn't matter". If you do, you'll have completely missed the point.
I really thought that I was going to get a lot more flames than this, but I find that almost all of the comments are quite thoughtful and reasonable.
I'm sorry if the article sounds whiny. I consider myself to have been quite fortunate in my career and in the success of my products. Part of what I was trying to get across is that the industry has changed quite a bit from the 1980s. If you really want to be a game programmer, go for it...but I want you to know what it is you are getting into. If you can find the right company, it can make all the difference in the world. But the glamour that surrounds the games industry is a bubble which I feel is badly in need of popping.
I apologize for not supplying as many real-world examples as people would like. I did forward this article to about a dozen people in the games industry (including two former chairmen of game development conventions) and they "mostly" agreed with my conclusions. (The part about the profitability of the industry was the most contraversial.) Other data can be found in back issues of the CGDA report. I don't want to name specific individuals or companies for obvious reasons.
As far as starting my own company: "Been there, done that." It was a fun five years, but we never actually made a profit. During the last year of the company, I got maybe half of my paychecks. I managed to avoid personal bankruptcy...barely. Words of advice: Don't reallocate power during a company crisis, no matter how attractive a solution it seems. Don't let an adversarial manager drive away good talent. And learn the business side yourself, don't hire an outsider to do it for you.
With respect to Quake: As I mentioned, I think that Quake (and DOOM, Half-life, etc.) are great games. DOOM was revolutionary, not just in it's graphical presentation, but in everything about it. Even the way that DOOM used sound was subtly different than anything that had been done before. But what was revolutionary five years ago is now "the standard".
I played multiplayer Quake with my co-workers very heavily for about two months while working at Dreamers Guild. After two months I said "OK, that was good, now I'm done with that." I enjoyed it for a short time, but I can't see myself playing it over and over again, even in multiplayer. To be honest, I find the customizability of Quake far more intriguing. Being able to create different games (like Team Fortress, Jailbreak, etc.) is what I really think games are about. When I was little, we "made up our own" games, and I think that's exactly how computer games should work too.
With respect to the issue of game demographics, and supply and demand: One thing that has to be borne in mind is that every game has to be sold 4 times - once to the publisher, once to the distributor, once to the retailer, and once to the customer. (Obviously, direct internet sales are a different model.) Each of these organizations has a marketing staff that studies what it's current market is. So even if you came up with a game for 60-year-old golfers, or 12-year-old girls, you have to get it past all these people that say "we know what our market it, and this isn't it." Even if you could get it through all that, what 60-year-old golfer is ever going to visit the games section of CompUSA or Fry's? You'd have to invent a whole new distribution channel. This is what Purple Moon tried to do, and they failed. Chris Crawford predicted ten years ago that the computer games industry, by pursuing a single demographic, would create a "ghetto" for itself, so that adults would consider them to be "childish" and "for kids". Most adult Americans percieve comic books, animated movies and computer games as "kid stuff", despite that fact that we know that adult comics and anime exist.
The comment about 14-year-old boys was perpetuating a stereotype, it's true. But I have noticed that almost all popular games are based on the exploitation of some well-defined primate behavior: Dominance hierarchies, grooming behavior, maternal instinct, fight or flight, etc. Even games like Minesweeper can be explained as nit-picking (popping the gnats on the skull.) (This also explains the popularity of bubble-wrap popping.:-) Although I've yet to see a good flirting (not porn!) game.
I should note that companies like id are the exception rather than the rule. Working at Electronic Arts, for example, is a very different experience than working for id. Even Carmack paid his dues with the Commander Keen games and Wolfenstein before creating DOOM. Had Carmack started working at EA, Quake would not exist.
To the people who suggest working on their particular open source game project: Actually, what I'm doing for fun at the moment is porting my game creation tools (animation sprite editor, for example) from the Amiga to KDE.
In Phillip and Alex's Guide to Web publishing, it says that a sound business idea never suffers when publicized. Imagine that 100,000 people knew about your business idea - would you still think it was worthwhile doing? If not, then it's probably a bad idea to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
A method of creating a software application that is arbitrarily extensible by end-users. The application consists of a small "core" consisting mainly of an interpreted language processor and a small set of basic data-manipulation functions. The rest of the application is written in the interpreted language. The application contains a complete development environment for the interpreted language, so that users can develop and test new extensions while the application is running.
Other claims could include:
- The ability to save these "extensions" on a hard drive for later use.
- The ability of the application to "compile" these extensions into byte code for faster loading and execution.
- The ability for users to download extensions written by others
- The ability for the program to automatically include a large number of extensions as part of the install process.
- The ability for the program to automatically download extensions from a standard library on the web.
Of course, the cool thing about this patent is that just about every application in Microsoft Office uses these techniques as well.Almost everything that I've ever done that was clever was because of a collision between disparate skill sets. The broader your knowledge base is, I believe the less likely you'll run into blocks like this. I also include non-programming knowledge - especially other skills such as art, music, drafting, philosophy, etc.
Often the best way to get over a block is to learn a new language. My C++ programming style has been greatly influenced by my knowledge of Java and Python.
Also, I highly recommend learning UML (Unified Modeling Language).
Could we PLEASE for a moment put aside the issue of who is right, and instead talk about what we are going to do? Maybe Debian's interpretation of the GPL/Qt incompatibility is legally sound, maybe it's not. Maybe the KDE group's opinion that there's no problem is correct, and maybe it isn't.
None of that is important. What is important is that we have two groups who are intractably set in their particular positions, with little or no hope that either side will change their minds.
Deadlock.
But -- that doesn't mean that nothing can be done.
I have a suggestion: It is possible to compromise on legal issues without admitting that you're wrong. For example, it would be possible (although tedious and time-consuming) for the KDE folks to add the requested exception to their license, even if they don't believe that it is legally necessary. Doing so would bring a wealth of benefits, IMHO, and wouldn't harm the KDE project at all, except for the loss of some time.
That is what the $3000 is for. Not to change their opinions about legal issues, but to initiate action. The $3000 is merely paying the KDE folks for the work involved in adding a feature, only in this case the feature is legal, not technical. The fact that none of the KDE people believe that they need this feature is beside the point.
Let me give you an example taken from Jewish religious teachings (Note: I'm not Jewish, I just find religions of all sorts interesting). There is this notion of a "hedge" or "fence" around God's law. That is, the law of God is visualized as a barrier which none may cross. So the elders of the society put up a human-made barrier in front of God's barrier so that no one will get anywhere near God's barrier. In other words, there is a human law which is stricter than God's law, so that no one will accidentally violate God's law.
In programming, we do this sort of thing all the time. Sure, we know that the operating system should manage memory and filehandles for us, but we bullet-proof and firewall our code just the same. Of couse, a purist might argue that such things aren't needed ("Why are you bothering to close those database cursors - the garbage collector does that for you. You're just adding uneeded redundancy!") but real programmers know that a little bit of redundancy and backup is a good thing.
So why should it be so objectionable to take the same approach with licensing. Contrary to many of the opinions stated here, licensing is important, just as ethics is important. Isn't it worth a little trouble to make sure that we dot all our i's and cross all our t's? Shouldn't we be absolutely sure that we get the effects we want?
I am a huge fan of both Debian and KDE. I want to see those two projects work together in accord with each other's principles (I was going to say "in harmony", but that would have been misinterpreted :-). I applaud Dr. Guenter Bechly's actions in this matter. In fact, if there were a "pool" set up for collecting additional funds for this reward, I would add money to it.
And PLEASE do not reply to this posting with statements such as "but it isn't necessary" or "KDE is wrong" or "Debian is wrong" or "it doesn't matter". If you do, you'll have completely missed the point.
I'm sorry if the article sounds whiny. I consider myself to have been quite fortunate in my career and in the success of my products. Part of what I was trying to get across is that the industry has changed quite a bit from the 1980s. If you really want to be a game programmer, go for it...but I want you to know what it is you are getting into. If you can find the right company, it can make all the difference in the world. But the glamour that surrounds the games industry is a bubble which I feel is badly in need of popping.
I apologize for not supplying as many real-world examples as people would like. I did forward this article to about a dozen people in the games industry (including two former chairmen of game development conventions) and they "mostly" agreed with my conclusions. (The part about the profitability of the industry was the most contraversial.) Other data can be found in back issues of the CGDA report. I don't want to name specific individuals or companies for obvious reasons.
As far as starting my own company: "Been there, done that." It was a fun five years, but we never actually made a profit. During the last year of the company, I got maybe half of my paychecks. I managed to avoid personal bankruptcy...barely. Words of advice: Don't reallocate power during a company crisis, no matter how attractive a solution it seems. Don't let an adversarial manager drive away good talent. And learn the business side yourself, don't hire an outsider to do it for you.
With respect to Quake: As I mentioned, I think that Quake (and DOOM, Half-life, etc.) are great games. DOOM was revolutionary, not just in it's graphical presentation, but in everything about it. Even the way that DOOM used sound was subtly different than anything that had been done before. But what was revolutionary five years ago is now "the standard".
I played multiplayer Quake with my co-workers very heavily for about two months while working at Dreamers Guild. After two months I said "OK, that was good, now I'm done with that." I enjoyed it for a short time, but I can't see myself playing it over and over again, even in multiplayer. To be honest, I find the customizability of Quake far more intriguing. Being able to create different games (like Team Fortress, Jailbreak, etc.) is what I really think games are about. When I was little, we "made up our own" games, and I think that's exactly how computer games should work too.
With respect to the issue of game demographics, and supply and demand: One thing that has to be borne in mind is that every game has to be sold 4 times - once to the publisher, once to the distributor, once to the retailer, and once to the customer. (Obviously, direct internet sales are a different model.) Each of these organizations has a marketing staff that studies what it's current market is. So even if you came up with a game for 60-year-old golfers, or 12-year-old girls, you have to get it past all these people that say "we know what our market it, and this isn't it." Even if you could get it through all that, what 60-year-old golfer is ever going to visit the games section of CompUSA or Fry's? You'd have to invent a whole new distribution channel. This is what Purple Moon tried to do, and they failed. Chris Crawford predicted ten years ago that the computer games industry, by pursuing a single demographic, would create a "ghetto" for itself, so that adults would consider them to be "childish" and "for kids". Most adult Americans percieve comic books, animated movies and computer games as "kid stuff", despite that fact that we know that adult comics and anime exist.
The comment about 14-year-old boys was perpetuating a stereotype, it's true. But I have noticed that almost all popular games are based on the exploitation of some well-defined primate behavior: Dominance hierarchies, grooming behavior, maternal instinct, fight or flight, etc. Even games like Minesweeper can be explained as nit-picking (popping the gnats on the skull.) (This also explains the popularity of bubble-wrap popping. :-) Although I've yet to see a good flirting (not porn!) game.
I should note that companies like id are the exception rather than the rule. Working at Electronic Arts, for example, is a very different experience than working for id. Even Carmack paid his dues with the Commander Keen games and Wolfenstein before creating DOOM. Had Carmack started working at EA, Quake would not exist.
To the people who suggest working on their particular open source game project: Actually, what I'm doing for fun at the moment is porting my game creation tools (animation sprite editor, for example) from the Amiga to KDE.
In Phillip and Alex's Guide to Web publishing, it says that a sound business idea never suffers when publicized. Imagine that 100,000 people knew about your business idea - would you still think it was worthwhile doing? If not, then it's probably a bad idea to begin with.