Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> That 
> Pixar patent seemed (as far as I could tell, I'm no expert) to apply to 
> anything that used randomized sampling, so it could cover media, 
> radiosity, focal blur, scenes that use averaged textures with different 
> normals, jitter in the antialiasing, area lights, or photons...

  What I don't understand about many of these algorithm patents is that many
of them use principles which were first described by mathematicians, often
a really long time ago (eg. in the 1700's or whatever).
  The scheme seems to be the following:
  1) Get an idea for an algorithm.
  2) Use a method first developed by a mathematician (often hundreds of years
     ago) to implement this algorithm
  3) Patent this algorithm. (Since you seemingly can patent *anything* in the
     US, this shouldn't be a problem.) Word the patent so that it practically
     covers that mathematical method (ie. in practice patent that mathematical
     method!)
  4) Wait a few years.
  5) Sue everybody who is using this algorithm, or most importantly, anyone
     using *any* algorithm based in the same principle developed by that
     mathematician hundreds of years ago.
  6) Since patents are seldom voided (because people usually don't have the
     money necessary for this process), collect winnings. Don't give a rat's
     ass about fair play.

> (when did patents go from a protection to a weapon?)

  When companies got big and greedy.

-- 
#macro M(A,N,D,L)plane{-z,-9pigment{mandel L*9translate N color_map{[0rgb x]
[1rgb 9]}scale<D,D*3D>*1e3}rotate y*A*8}#end M(-3<1.206434.28623>70,7)M(
-1<.7438.1795>1,20)M(1<.77595.13699>30,20)M(3<.75923.07145>80,99)// - Warp -

Post a reply to this message