On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:51:19 +0100, "Tim Nikias" <tim### [at] gmxde>
wrote:

>I guess you meant "lawyer", cause "laying" someone
>is a totally different matter... ;-)

He did that a lot, too :))


Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG      e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg

Post a reply to this message

Peter Popov wrote:
> Larry Gritz is hardly just someone at Pixar, he is the author of the
> Renderman shading language. Without him, Pixar would have been nowhere
> near where they are today.

Are you sure (about being author of SL)? He joined Pixar 1995 (according 
to ARM), but notes about SL could be found in SIGGRAPH 90 notes. Of 
course he was one of main authors of new RM specification and one of the 
most influential contributors in CG.

Vahur,
in a mood of nitpicking :-)

Post a reply to this message

Hey,
thats a good chance to bring up a sentence from a person who is big in the
world of software.
Between those who have knowledge about programing he is like the himalaya
between the mountains ...

Donald KNUTH

He said something like that "Computer software algorhytms are like
mathematical laws.
                                           They do not get created by
someone. Someone finds out that they work.
                                           How can you get the owner of a
natural law ?"

And one thing we should not forget about his TEX and MetaFONT is:
    He pays $$ to anyone who finds a bug in one of his programm.
    Ask "big Bill" to do that ...

(Hope my english is good enough for that).

--Theo

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Distributed Network-Rendering or Local SMP-Rendering on all CPU's you have.
With SMPOV und POV-Ray 3.5. * Download free at:
http://www.it-berater.org/smpov.htm

Post a reply to this message

Theo Gottwald * <The### [at] t-onlinede> wrote:
> He said something like that "Computer software algorhytms are like
> mathematical laws.
>                                            They do not get created by
> someone. Someone finds out that they work.
>                                            How can you get the owner of a
> natural law ?"

  This is one of the principles in most European patenting offices.
You can only patent devices which use laws of nature, you can't patent
the laws of nature themselves.

  Unfortunately European patenting offices are fastly moving towards the
US patenting system.

  (It's curious that this is happening already. The patent office of the
European Union (or whatever it's called) has already conceded something
like 30000 patents which are against the patenting laws of European
countries. These patents probably can't withstand a lawsuit, but unfortunately
this is probably going to change soon...)

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Why does the patent system exist in the first place? As far as I know, it
was invented to encourage innovation. Well, it did while the rate of
innovation was slow in the 19th century. But now in the late 20th and early
21st centuries, it is destroying innovation. If governments want to
encourage innovation (and who doesn't), they should abolish the patent
system, permanently.

I think if anyone tries to pull a software patent infringement on you, you
should just ignore it, for the simple reason that THERE IS NO SUCH THING.

The previous argument about not being able to patent the laws of natue is
exactly right.

You can not patent Pythagoras' Theorem, as it is just a mathematical tool.
And an algorithm is also just a mathematical tool. And as any piece of
software is simply a collection of algorithms, YOU CAN'T PATENT SOFTWARE!
Therefore if anyone tries to charge you money for using a patented
algorithm, tell them that they can't, because there is no such thing as a
software patent and theirs is void. Give them the previous argument.

So why, in this age of superluminar technological advancement, do we need a
system that was designed to promote it in an age when technological
advancement was working at a snail's pace, and now inhibits it?

Big businesses have too much power, and should not be allowed to get away
with it. Governments should change the law so that a business, no matter
how large, only has the same amount of power as an individual.

Rohan _e_ii

Post a reply to this message

Rohan Bernett <rox### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
> Big businesses have too much power, and should not be allowed to get away
> with it. Governments should change the law so that a business, no matter
> how large, only has the same amount of power as an individual.

  Patents are one of the strongest weapons for big companies in order to
keep small companies and individuals in leash. Patents, specially if they
can patent *anything* (as seem possible in the US) are relatively cheap and
a great benefit for companies, so it's far from their interest to remove or
even dimish the patenting system. As they are extremely rich and powerful,
they also have the means to keep things this way.
  A government which tried to remove or limit patenting will invariably
find itself fighting against giant companies... (Companies have some
big weapons against governments as well; for example one quite effective
is the threat of moving the entire company outside the country; I think
something like this has happened for example in Canada, when one province
wanted independency but big companies didn't agree.)

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in news:3dbd5329@news.povray.org:

> Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
>> No, the official answer can only be that the POV-Team is not aware of
>> any patents infringed by POV-Ray.
> 
>   GIF...

Hyperlinks in Windows (at least) documentation...
At least, that's what British Telecom would want...

JPEG is (was) also threatened by a patent claim. Some Japanese company 
(Sony?) even already paid to be safe...

-- 
--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--
Philippe Lhoste (Paris -- France)
Professional programmer and amateur artist
http://jove.prohosting.com/~philho/

Post a reply to this message

"Rohan Bernett" <rox### [at] yahoocom> wrote in
news:web.3dc5b922a7a23796b2769afa0@news.povray.org: 

> Why does the patent system exist in the first place? As far as I know,
> it was invented to encourage innovation. Well, it did while the rate
> of innovation was slow in the 19th century. But now in the late 20th
> and early 21st centuries, it is destroying innovation. If governments
> want to encourage innovation (and who doesn't), they should abolish
> the patent system, permanently.

I don't like software patenting, at least for obvious things or algorithms 
known for a long time.

I don't have a strong opinion on the subject, but I believe patenting can 
be useful to protect intellectual investment.

I mean, an individual or a company invests a lot of time/money to develop 
an idea, say a simple device to close a cloth with a quick gesture (using 
a lot of small interlocking elements). If patents didn't exists, as soon 
as it is commercially released, concurrents can copy the device and sell 
it, perhaps at cheaper prices if they are bigger. So the small company or 
individual just no longer sell its device, because they are crushed by the 
power of the copying company.

With patents, either they are alone to sell their device, or they earn 
money by selling licences.

Note: that's not so easy, at least for the individual, since patents cost 
a lot of money.

Now, I know I state the obvious, and I am probably too naive, but I still 
think patents can be useful, when protecting real intellectual investment.

-- 
--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--
Philippe Lhoste (Paris -- France)
Professional programmer and amateur artist
http://jove.prohosting.com/~philho/

Post a reply to this message

In article <Xns### [at] 204213191226>,
 Philippe Lhoste <Phi### [at] GMXnet> wrote:

> I don't like software patenting, at least for obvious things or algorithms 
> known for a long time.

The problem with that condition is that the patent reviewers usually 
don't know it. There are many patents on things that are completely 
non-original. A lot of software patents seem to be for things that any 
programmer would come up with when faced with the same problem.
Banning software patents seems inconsistent though...it is a real 
machine, even if you can't touch it. The difference between a 
mathematical algorithm and a machine is pretty blurry.
Copyright seems a better way to handle it, but I think copying the 
actual code is rarely a problem. And at what point does a piece of code 
become copyrightable? A program is like an equation, there are only a 
few ways to express the same thing in a language. Copyrighting the 
source to a program makes sense, but can you copyright a small for() 
loop that would be written by any programmer solving the same problem?


> I don't have a strong opinion on the subject, but I believe patenting can 
> be useful to protect intellectual investment.

It could if it worked right. At first, the American system seems to have 
worked pretty well, but it has mutated badly and now seems to do more 
harm than good. I don't know about the patent systems of other countries.


> I mean, an individual or a company invests a lot of time/money to develop 
> an idea, say a simple device to close a cloth with a quick gesture (using 
> a lot of small interlocking elements). If patents didn't exists, as soon 
> as it is commercially released, concurrents can copy the device and sell 
> it, perhaps at cheaper prices if they are bigger. So the small company or 
> individual just no longer sell its device, because they are crushed by the 
> power of the copying company.

Well, if it is complex enough, it will be difficult to copy. If it is 
simpler, it would have been less "worthy" of a patent. I know this 
doesn't work well in real life.
The original goal of patents was to protect the original creator while 
avoiding stunting the growth of technology by companies and inventors 
keeping things secret. Without patents, you either keep the technique 
secret and others have to develop it themselves, or someone with more 
capital copies the idea and puts you out of business.
Patents now seem to be making the problem worse: companies are 
collecting large portfolios of simple patents and using them to squash 
innovation in or bleed money out of potential competitors. They are also 
using loopholes to keep control of things longer than what the system 
intended. The "little guys" are still vulnerable, and the big guys are 
now backed by the government.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

Philippe Lhoste <Phi### [at] gmxnet> wrote:
> Some Japanese company (Sony?) even already paid to be safe...

  I think that's the wrong thing to do.
  It's the same principle as paying ransom: If you pay once, they will
ask for more.

-- 
#macro N(D)#if(D>99)cylinder{M()#local D=div(D,104);M().5,2pigment{rgb M()}}
N(D)#end#end#macro M()<mod(D,13)-6mod(div(D,13)8)-3,10>#end blob{
N(11117333955)N(4254934330)N(3900569407)N(7382340)N(3358)N(970)}//  - Warp -

Post a reply to this message