Nathan Kopp <Nat### [at] koppcom> wrote:
: Not to start a huge discussion.... but as a programmer I find software
: patents so annoying.  I have this sinking feeling that in the future
: whenever I try to do something, all of my tools to complete the task
: will be unavailable because somebody patented them.

  Here in Finland you can't patent algorithms or methods. You can only
patent real devices and such which have not been published before.

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

In article <3797f5ff@news.povray.org> , "Anders Haglund" 
<and### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:

> Well, we just have to start distribute povray from sweden then because we
> don't have patents on algorithms here. :)
> It has been done for a couple of mp3-encoders who use that fast fraunhofer
> algorithm or what ever it's called.

I think that goes for the whole European Union - we don't have such a
nonsense here in Germany either.


    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 wrote:
> 
> In article <3797f5ff@news.povray.org> , "Anders Haglund"
> <and### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> 
> > Well, we just have to start distribute povray from sweden then because we
> > don't have patents on algorithms here. :)
> > It has been done for a couple of mp3-encoders who use that fast fraunhofer
> > algorithm or what ever it's called.
> 
> I think that goes for the whole European Union - we don't have such a
> nonsense here in Germany either.
> 
Yet! But trust the U.S. government to put pressure on the E.U. parlement
to recognize:
 - mathematical patent (just let me patent PI and e, as well as the
addition)
 - biological patent (you are all mine ! your blood is mine, all your
                      proteine are patented, all your DNA is patented
                          (by small chunk, so making a baby is a patent
                         violation of reusing patented material !)

Post a reply to this message

The highest cost in rendering blobs, isosurfaces, or any other procedurally
defined surface is performing intersection tests for rays that miss the object. 
This is why turning them into a mesh is such a cool idea.  I mean the
intersection test is dead simple, and anyone who is serious about rendering
speed already has tons of memory!

	But let me toss in another suggestion that might short-circuit the critics AND
keep the speed advantage.  Let's compute the mesh and use it as a bounding
surface (i.e. we are 99.5% sure that the isosurface totally inside this mesh). 
And, you could just render the mesh for test renders.  This will totally reduce
the number wasted calculations, and keep the beauty of the isosurfaces at al
resolutions!

	BUT I know that there are some guys out there thinking, "why not use the usual
bounding boxes?"  The big deal about isosurfaces and blobs is the easy way you
can model "organic" shapes and seamlessly connected objects.  Well, it seems to
me like these objects are full of holes or have tubes stucking out of them, so
the bounding box ends up being 60-80% empty, and you waste 60-80% of your
expensive intersection tests!

	Just an idea!

	In Him,
	Ben

Post a reply to this message

J. Grimbert wrote in message <37987EB2.A7AC92CC@atos-group.com>...
>Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
>>
>> In article <3797f5ff@news.povray.org> , "Anders Haglund"
>> <and### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>
>> > Well, we just have to start distribute povray from sweden then because
we
>> > don't have patents on algorithms here. :)
>> > It has been done for a couple of mp3-encoders who use that fast
fraunhofer
>> > algorithm or what ever it's called.
>>
>> I think that goes for the whole European Union - we don't have such a
>> nonsense here in Germany either.
>>
>Yet! But trust the U.S. government to put pressure on the E.U. parlement
>to recognize:
> - mathematical patent (just let me patent PI and e, as well as the
>addition)


Someone HAS gotten a patent on a number!  It is a large prime number, and as
such is useful for encryption.  The person who got the patent on the number
did so to show how out of hand the patent process was.

Mark

Post a reply to this message

In article <37987EB2.A7AC92CC@atos-group.com> , "J. Grimbert" 
<jgr### [at] atos-groupcom> wrote:

>> I think that goes for the whole European Union - we don't have such a
>> nonsense here in Germany either.
>>
> Yet! But trust the U.S. government to put pressure on the E.U. parliament
> to recognize:

The EU and its member states are independent. The USA cannot blackmail the
EU or any of its member states. The economic power (superseding that of the
USA) of the EU and independence from USA markets doesn't put the USA in a
position to put up any pressure..the USA cannot afford a trade war with the
EU as this would seriously damage growth in the USA and no president/party
could survive it :-)


     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

Ben Birdsey wrote:
> 
>         But let me toss in another suggestion that might short-circuit the critics
AND
> keep the speed advantage.  Let's compute the mesh and use it as a bounding
> surface (i.e. we are 99.5% sure that the isosurface totally inside this mesh).
> And, you could just render the mesh for test renders.  This will totally reduce
> the number wasted calculations, and keep the beauty of the isosurfaces at al
> resolutions!

A very interesting idea!  You could bound with a lower resolution mesh if
you use a slightly higher potential threshold.

-Nathan

Post a reply to this message

Concave surfaces might be a problem.

Margus

Nathan Kopp wrote:
> 
> 
> A very interesting idea!  You could bound with a lower resolution mesh if
> you use a slightly higher potential threshold.
> 
> -Nathan

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote in message <37998295@news.povray.org>...
>
>The EU and its member states are independent. The USA cannot blackmail the
>EU or any of its member states. The economic power (superseding that of the
>USA) of the EU and independence from USA markets doesn't put the USA in a
>position to put up any pressure..the USA cannot afford a trade war with the
>EU as this would seriously damage growth in the USA and no president/party
>could survive it :-)


Yes, but just try convincing the politicians of that!  :-)

Mark

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 24 Jul 1999 12:36:50 -0400, Nathan Kopp wrote:
>
>Ben Birdsey wrote:
>> 
>>         But let me toss in another suggestion that might short-circuit the critics
AND
>> keep the speed advantage.  Let's compute the mesh and use it as a bounding
>> surface (i.e. we are 99.5% sure that the isosurface totally inside this mesh).
>> And, you could just render the mesh for test renders.  This will totally reduce
>> the number wasted calculations, and keep the beauty of the isosurfaces at al
>> resolutions!
>
>A very interesting idea!  You could bound with a lower resolution mesh if
>you use a slightly higher potential threshold.

  f(x,y,z) = x^2+y^2+z^2-1
  g(x,y,z) = 1-x^2-y^2-z^2

Both f and g are spheres.  Both have unit radius if you use a threshold of 
zero.  If you use a higher threshold, f gets larger while g gets smaller.

Post a reply to this message