In article <3dbcb040$1@news.povray.org>,
 "Greg M. Johnson" <gregj:-)56590@ao:-)l.com> wrote:

> 3D World had an article about this, but I couldn't find an online link.
> 
> http://www.digitalproducer.com/2002/07_jul/news/07_22/pixar_exluna.htm
> 
> Pixar sued a rival, and one of the object of contention was the
> anti-aliasing technique.  Is POV OK?

If you are asking if anyone has a patent on something used in POV, the 
answer is yes. Given the amount and type of stuff patented, there has to 
be. Even if there weren't, POV still wouldn't be "safe". This particular 
patent was on a kind of "random sampling" as I recall...they could 
probably claim it applies to POV antialiasing, area lights, photons, 
media, radiosity...fighting them off would not be easy.
Fortunately, the POV Team probably isn't a very high-priority target.

-- 
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

In article <chr### [at] netplexaussieorg> , 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>  wrote:

>> 3D World had an article about this, but I couldn't find an online link.
>>
>> http://www.digitalproducer.com/2002/07_jul/news/07_22/pixar_exluna.htm
>>
>> Pixar sued a rival, and one of the object of contention was the
>> anti-aliasing technique.  Is POV OK?
>
> If you are asking if anyone has a patent on something used in POV, the
> answer is yes. Given the amount and type of stuff patented, there has to
> be. Even if there weren't, POV still wouldn't be "safe". This particular
> patent was on a kind of "random sampling" as I recall...they could
> probably claim it applies to POV antialiasing, area lights, photons,
> media, radiosity...fighting them off would not be easy.
> Fortunately, the POV Team probably isn't a very high-priority target.

No, the official answer can only be that the POV-Team is not aware of any
patents infringed by POV-Ray.  Saying anything else would be very
danagerous.

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

Greg M. Johnson <gregj:-)56590@ao:-)l.com> wrote:
> http://www.digitalproducer.com/2002/07_jul/news/07_22/pixar_exluna.htm

  I still wonder why these stories *never* tell *where* has the patent
been issued and where is it being fought.
  They always talk as if the patent is valid in the whole world...

-- 
#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

The 3dworld article gives the US Patent # and location of courtroom.

Go to:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netahtml/search-adv.htm

and type in
                  pn/4897806
or
                  an/pixar

to see the list of pixar patents.

I find that
"far too seldom" gets one in less trouble than "never"
and
"far too often" gets on in less trouble than "always."
right bill?


"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:3dbd3227@news.povray.org...
>
> I still wonder why these stories *never* tell *where* has the patent
> been issued and where is it being fought.
> They always talk as if the patent is valid in the whole world...
>

Post a reply to this message

In article <3dbcdf41@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.  Saying anything else would be very
> danagerous.

Of course, this is true, and I should have made that clearer. My only 
point was that it is almost certain that for any large software project, 
somewhere somebody has a patent that they could (mis)interpret as 
applying and cause legal problems even if they have no real case.

-- 
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

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...

-- 
#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 wrote:
> 
> 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...

...never heard of it.

-- 
Ken Tyler

Post a reply to this message

Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:

[...]

> Fortunately, the POV Team probably isn't a very high-priority target.

Let's hope one day it is. ;-)

-- 
Kaveh

Post a reply to this message

In article <3dbd3227@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   They always talk as if the patent is valid in the whole world...

That is because your definition fo "world" and the definition of "world" for
280 million people in a certain country differs significantly...

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

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

>> No, the official answer can only be that the POV-Team is not aware of any
>> patents infringed by POV-Ray.
>
>   GIF...

POV-Ray does not support GIF/TIFF LZW compression.  There is no evidence
that the existing patent for LZW compression does actually cover
decompression other than the intentionally vague statements of the LZW
compression patent holder.

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

IIRC, Exluna was formed by two people who left Pixar,
so it is not unreasonable to believe they actually took
some techniques with them. Probably fast anti-aliasing
algorithms that they wrote, but Pixar "owned". This is
a real problem in academia too. If you invent something
while you are a grad student or post-doc at a university,
the University owns it. So wait till you're on your own
before you publish it!

Harold

"Greg M. Johnson" <gregj:-)56590@ao:-)l.com> wrote in message
news:3dbcb040$1@news.povray.org...
> 3D World had an article about this, but I couldn't find an online link.
>
> http://www.digitalproducer.com/2002/07_jul/news/07_22/pixar_exluna.htm
>
> Pixar sued a rival, and one of the object of contention was the
> anti-aliasing technique.  Is POV OK?
>
>

Post a reply to this message

> That is because your definition fo "world" and the definition of
> "world" for 280 million people in a certain country differs
> significantly... 
> 
>     Thorsten
> 

Cheap shot!

Post a reply to this message

Oh, now I get it, that's what those pop stars meant
when they sang "We Are the World"  ;-)

HB

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3dbd8780$1@news.povray.org...
> In article <3dbd3227@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:
>
> >   They always talk as if the patent is valid in the whole world...
>
> That is because your definition fo "world" and the definition of "world"
for
> 280 million people in a certain country differs significantly...
>
>     Thorsten
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
> e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
>
> Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

"Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote in message
news:3dbcdf41@news.povray.org...
> In article <chr### [at] netplexaussieorg> ,
> Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>  wrote:
>
> >> 3D World had an article about this, but I couldn't find an online link.
> >>
> >> http://www.digitalproducer.com/2002/07_jul/news/07_22/pixar_exluna.htm
> >>
> >> Pixar sued a rival, and one of the object of contention was the
> >> anti-aliasing technique.  Is POV OK?
> >
> > If you are asking if anyone has a patent on something used in POV, the
> > answer is yes. Given the amount and type of stuff patented, there has to
> > be. Even if there weren't, POV still wouldn't be "safe". This particular
> > patent was on a kind of "random sampling" as I recall...they could
> > probably claim it applies to POV antialiasing, area lights, photons,
> > media, radiosity...fighting them off would not be easy.
> > Fortunately, the POV Team probably isn't a very high-priority target.
>
> No, the official answer can only be that the POV-Team is not aware of any
> patents infringed by POV-Ray.  Saying anything else would be very
> danagerous.

    I find that this is the most important part of this thread.

       ~Steve~


>
>     Thorsten
>
> ____________________________________________________
> Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
> e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
>
> Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 10:09:29 -0500, Warp quoth:

> 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...

That particular patent expires in 43 days.

-- 
Mark

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 11:05:46 -0800, "Harold Baize"
<bai### [at] itsaucsfedu> wrote:

>IIRC, Exluna was formed by two people who left Pixar,

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.

I find such legal issues particularly appalling and driven by green.
No wonder Al Pacino had a layer's company in "Devil's Advocate".


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

Post a reply to this message

> No wonder Al Pacino had a layer's company in "Devil's Advocate".

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

--
Tim Nikias
Homepage: http://www.digitaltwilight.de/no_lights/index.html
Email: Tim### [at] gmxde

Post a reply to this message

> No wonder Al Pacino had a lawyer's company in "Devil's Advocate".

"Advocate" also comes from the same root as "lawyer" in a number of
languages, including Spanish (abogado).

--
Anthony

Post a reply to this message

In article <3dbe6f8f@news.povray.org> , "Tony[B]" <ben### [at] catholicorg> 
wrote:

> "Advocate" also comes from the same root

Yes, the language many other languages inherited it from is Latin.

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

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

Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom> wrote:
> 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?

  One big problem I think, is related to that.
  Programmers will come up with solutions to problems independently, without
knowing that someone else has already come up with a very similar solution
and patented it. If this programmer makes his program public, still without
any knowledge of the patent, the patent holder can sue him.

  The problem I see here is this: Where is the crime? Why is he sued?
Certainly he hasn't copied others' ideas for his program, as he made the
program entirely himself, without looking at anyone else's ideas.
  In my opinion this starts getting closer to limiting freedom of speech.
It's something that you created yourself, without copying nor even hearing
about the idea earlier. It's your own creation, your own work, your own
way of expressing things. And you can get sued for doing that? That is
like censorship. Where is this world going? *sigh*

-- 
#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

Warp wrote:
> It's the same principle as paying ransom: If you pay once, they will
> ask for more.

You know, that's an assumption that's not neccesarily true.  I'm sure
there have been many instances where ransoms were paid and whatever was
being held hostage was released, perhaps more than not.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://empyrean.scifi-fantasy.com
mirror: http://personal.lig.bellsouth.net/lig/z/9/z993126

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message

Yes, I had a few electronics people get hot about a pulse width modulation
circuit I designed.  I published the schematics and a pretty liberal agreement-
if you use it personally, just give me credit.  If you want it commercially,
contact me.
    Boy, you would have thought I was trying to claim the invention of water or
something.  Some of them got very irate, even though my circuit was completely
independently designed, tested, and documented.  I even showed how to drive
different types of devices with it.  Not so with something you reverse engineer
or steal...

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

Post a reply to this message

Philippe Lhoste wrote:

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

No, they paid because they SUPPORT patent abuse, it's their interest.
The same reason why Apple paid for Amazon's "one click" rubbish...

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

Rohan Bernett wrote:

> 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.

The real problem is that getting a patent on your inventions is not even
half the rent. You have to be able to defend them in the legal system,
and that is virtually impossible for a small inventor.

Post a reply to this message

Dr Engelbert Buxbaum <eng### [at] webde> wrote:
> You have to be able to defend them in the legal system,
> and that is virtually impossible for a small inventor.

  Can you explain why?

-- 
#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

Legal costs.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

Post a reply to this message

As Sir Charles said, costs.

A large company can afford to prolong a patent case well beyond the means of a
single individual or small company. Even a clear and obvious patent infringement
cannot be defended without a suitable legal team.

Hoover ripped off Dyson and the fight went on for years - now Dyson were by then
a large enough company to last the distance, but as an example of a simple and
obvious infringement turning into a protracted series of legal challenges it's
very depressing.


"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message news:3dd0fadc@news.povray.org...
> Dr Engelbert Buxbaum <eng### [at] webde> wrote:
> > You have to be able to defend them in the legal system,
> > and that is virtually impossible for a small inventor.
>
>   Can you explain why?
>
> --
> #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

"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in news:3dd120ea@news.povray.org:

> Hoover ripped off Dyson and the fight went on for years - now Dyson
> were by then a large enough company to last the distance, but as an
> example of a simple and obvious infringement turning into a protracted
> series of legal challenges it's very depressing.

Yes, seeing vacuum cleaner companies fight is quite depressing...

Mmm, I don't know if this pun is funny in English... That's the problem 
with making puns in a foreign language, I can get the pronunciation wrong 
("better strafe than sorry" wasn't successful...) or even the meaning 
(here?).

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

Post a reply to this message

"Philippe Lhoste" <Phi### [at] GMXnet> wrote in message
news:Xns### [at] 204213191226...
>
> Yes, seeing vacuum cleaner companies fight is quite depressing...
>

Nah - doesn't work. I'm guessing (because they're close-ish in English) that
there is some link between "vacuum" and "depressing"?

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in message
news:3dd13727@news.povray.org...
>
> Nah - doesn't work. I'm guessing (because they're close-ish in English)
that
> there is some link between "vacuum" and "depressing"?
>

Doesn't work in American, either.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

Tom Melly <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:
> As Sir Charles said, costs.

  So what's the point in having patents if they don't help?

-- 
#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

In times past, they were very useful.  You invented something, staked your
claim, made a living off it.  It was pretty easy to show that you had some
unique device and you thought of it, and you deserved the chance to make a
living from your cleverness without interference from others.
    Today, most "inventions" are rarely unique, new, or innovative.  And so many
things have been invented that most anyone can find something to sue you over.
They will not always win, but you can be bankrupted in the defense of your
patent in any case.  My feeling is that you are better off copyrighting what you
can, selling the hell out of it fast, and getting out.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
> Dr Engelbert Buxbaum <eng### [at] webde> wrote:
> > You have to be able to defend them in the legal system,
> > and that is virtually impossible for a small inventor.
> 
>   Can you explain why?

Judges who will accept any argument...

Post a reply to this message

Sir Charles W. Shults III <aic### [at] cflrrcom> wrote:
>     Today, most "inventions" are rarely unique, new, or innovative.  And so many
> things have been invented that most anyone can find something to sue you over.
> They will not always win, but you can be bankrupted in the defense of your
> patent in any case.

  Thus removing the whole patenting system would be a good idea, after all...

-- 
#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

In article <3dd21f5a@news.povray.org>, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> 
wrote:

>   Thus removing the whole patenting system would be a good idea, after all...

It would probably be better than the damage the current system does. 
However, the US patent office makes a fairly large amount of money which 
goes straight to the government, and big companies can abuse it to 
increase their own profits. Good luck shutting it down.

Really, the idea wasn't bad, just the implementation.

-- 
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

"Christopher James Huff" <chr### [at] maccom> wrote in message
news:chr### [at] netplexaussieorg...
>
> Really, the idea wasn't bad, just the implementation.
>

Can one really separate the two in this case (or in many cases for that matter)?

Ideally, patents should be restricted to genuine innovations (bye-bye Amazon's
one-click), but in the end you can't reasonably exclude the courts from a
dispute, and as soon as you've done that, it will inevitably come down to who
can afford the most expensive lawyers.

Perhaps a more open democratic system, such as used in the formation of usenet
newsgroups?

Post a reply to this message

In article <3dd278fd$1@news.povray.org>,
 "Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote:

> Ideally, patents should be restricted to genuine innovations (bye-bye 
> Amazon's one-click), but in the end you can't reasonably exclude the 
> courts from a dispute, and as soon as you've done that, it will 
> inevitably come down to who can afford the most expensive lawyers.

The cost of the lawyers would be irrelevant if the loser payed the fees, 
ideally it would happen this way: big company sues smaller competitor 
over obviously frivolous patent, little company hires lawyers just as 
good as the big company's, the patent gets overturned and the big 
company pays the bill. Or: little parasite threatens other companies 
with lawsuits, but instead of paying because they can't afford 
otherwise, they defend themselves.

-- 
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

In article <chr### [at] netplexaussieorg> , 
Christopher James Huff <chr### [at] maccom>  wrote:

> The cost of the lawyers would be irrelevant if the loser payed the fees,
> ideally it would happen this way:

Well, in countries where there is still the concept of "justice" in the
legal system, this is the case.

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

In such cases, the length of the case is dragged out by multiple appeals,
delays, etc. until the little guy runs out of money.  Then it is no longer a
matter of who is right or wrong.

Cheers!

Chip Shults
My robotics, space and CGI web page - http://home.cfl.rr.com/aichip

Post a reply to this message

"Tom Melly" <tom### [at] tomandlucouk> wrote in news:3dd13727@news.povray.org:

> "Philippe Lhoste" <Phi### [at] GMXnet> wrote in message
> news:Xns### [at] 204213191226...
>>
>> Yes, seeing vacuum cleaner companies fight is quite depressing...
>>
> 
> Nah - doesn't work. I'm guessing (because they're close-ish in
> English) that there is some link between "vacuum" and "depressing"?

Bah. In French, a depression is a state of mind, but the term is also used 
when pumping out air or in meteorology to indicate a lowering of air 
pressure.

Merriam-Webster shows that this use in English is a bit far fetched, 
although the "depression" article sends to the "hollow" one...

Oh well, remember to avoid making puns in English...

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

Post a reply to this message