Okay, I guess you’ve all seen this story - Microsoft buying up a whole shedload of fundamental 3D patents from SGI.
Can any of our resident driver writers (or anybody else, for that matter) comment on whether this is a genuine threat to OpenGL implementors?
Do we have the patent numbers yet?
There are some interesting comments on the subject here:
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/01/16/1824256.shtml
I think people are overreacting a little. Reading this link it looks like more of a matter of M$ buying to rights for something, maybe some tech for DX9, what do I know?
But they say it’s a “patent cross-license”, not “buying up OpenGL” like lots of people seams to read it.
No Humus,
“and the transfer of certain additional intellectual property rights to Microsoft”
This is the press release that tried to snow everyone. It’s not about buying up OpenGL, but it is about buying SGI’s graphics patents.
What about patents on high level shader language stuff?
Does any company have something like this?
Yes,
I think SGI has (or had) some shader related patents, I suspect this it one of the things SGI would have held onto, but who knows. Mr Gates et.al. may now own it.
Isn’t SGI very dependent on OpenGL ( software systems layered on top of OpenGL, for example ) ? If that’s the case ( which I assume ) then they wouldn’t sell something that would negatively affect their own products.
I thought these patents are related to game console technology …
Patents are for inventions, in this case horizontal technologies which can be applied in big SGI workstations, PCs or game consoles.
There is no legal difference between a graphics patent used in a workstation and the same graphics patent used in a game console. Heck the hardware is the same in this case too. The XBox graphics system is just a slightly enhanced GeForce3.
Go read that article again, you missed some things I read there. When someone writes 'the bulk of SGI’s graphics patents, (or words to that effect), they DON’T mean some piddly little widget developed for the N64. I doubt anything in the N64 gave rise to any new patents at SGI. It might have, but not a significant number of them. This sounds like it’s the whole ball of wax. SGI haven’t just sold the family silver, they’ve stripped the lead off the roof and sold it to the guy who burned down their mill.
At least there’s no doubt left about SGI’s expressed intentions, graphics has been officially declared “non core” at SGI.
[This message has been edited by dorbie (edited 01-17-2002).]
SGI sued ArtX for patent infringement about the design of the GameCube. So, I guess the SGI patents can be game console related. (see http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-329715.html?tag=rltdnws))
SGI sued also NVIDIA (see http://groups.google.com/groups?q=SGI+ArtX+patent&hl=en&selm=353C1B54.1ED69E15%40metavr.com&rnum=1)..) Now, NVIDIA has cross licensing agreements with S3 and SGI
Oh where to start. It’s like you’re deliberately trying to confuse the issues or you are very confused.
In context you clearly intended the “related to” phrase to imply that these were SPECIFIC to consoles, that their scope was somehow limited.
That is not the case. Let me repeat, 3D graphics patents are a horizontal technology, i.e. they apply to any 3D graphics product which incorporates them, in any markets, including but not limited to game consoles.
Also, I know that the article mentions patents in the ArtX suit, but there was more to this, there were allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets and other ugly issues in that case which ultimately went nowhere.
The NVIDIA stuff was covered in the article. In anycase that suit and settlement predates their console deal with Microsoft and was about their graphics chips used in PC cards at the time, not consoles. Let me explain, when you have a license agreement you don’t have a blank slate to run around and offer the technology to everyone else. You only have the rights granted to you in the license agreement, which might limit all sorts of things, like products, markets or the conditions under which you can sublicense. The patents are still owned by the inventor. In this case the article makes it clear that NVIDIA couldn’t just turn around and sublicense SGI’s property to Microsoft. Microsoft had to get it’s own license from SGI. Infact they didn’t just license though, it looks like they completely transferred ownership.
[This message has been edited by dorbie (edited 01-17-2002).]
3D graphics patents are a horizontal technology, i.e. they apply to any 3D graphics product which incorporates them, in any markets, including but not limited to game consoles
Yes, as you said “The XBox graphics system is just a slightly enhanced GeForce3”
The NVIDIA stuff was covered in the article. In anycase that suit and settlement predates their console deal with Microsoft and was about their graphics chips used in PC cards at the time, not consoles
Correct, it was about the RIVA card.
You only have the rights granted to you in the license agreement. The patents are still owned by the inventor. In this case NVIDIA can’t just turn around and sublicense SGI’s property to Microsoft. Microsoft has to get it’s own license from SGI
So, this agrement is/can be for the MS game console. If MS bought these patents because of the XBOX, that’s game console related. Or maybe it’s for the HomeStation (http://213.40.196.64/content/54/23722.html) but I don’t see what are the changes in 3D between the XBOX and the HomeStation.
dorbie, are you working for Silicon Graphics ?
No, I used to work for SGI, but this stuff is all in the public domain. This deal happened after I left.
I don’t know how many times I have to say this opla. These patents are horizontal technology, it is absolutely clear this is not specific to the XBox. Please be clearer when you phrase this. You say things like ‘related to’ and ‘about’. If you mean specific to then come out and say it. Using these ambiguous terms is just confusing the issue.
If your objective is to say that somehow what Microsoft has obtained here is limited in scope, then you are dead wrong. If you are saying that the XBox was the catalyst for the deal or covered by the patents, that’s already in the article and would be self evident anyway.
I’m just trying to avoid confusion here and you seem to be injecting it. If you have a position contrary to this state it, please try and avoid the phrase ‘related to’ or ‘about’ stating your position. If you think these patents limited in scope to game consoles then say so, I’ll just disagree with you in advance and save myself another post.
Opla, Dorbie,
It’s not that I want to interrupt your little talk ( 
) but can any of you two state clearly what their fears are with regards to this agreement ? I am a little unclear as to what to expect…
Dorbie, you said that this shows that graphics is now “non-core” at SGI. I may be dead wrong but for me, the whole purpose of SGI is graphics… What are they going to do then ???
Sorry for these stupid questions but I’d really like to understand what the big deal is…
Regards.
Eric
Maybe I wasn’t clear (English is not my native language).
I wanted to say “the XBox was the catalyst for the deal or covered by the patents” and that this patent deal is not a threat for OpenGL.
Eric, you email doesn’t work anymore, I couldn’t answer you. Please email me if it’s still OK for the pub (I can’t thursday 24th)
please excuse me this stupid trolling, but i’m getting depressed 
Is this a future?
patent law == Shariat
IP lawyers == Talibs
IP holders == Mullahs
BTW, Is there a patent on C language?
Eric,
I’m making my facetious observation that graphics is “non core” at SGI based on SGI’s documented statements about the transfer of “non core” intellectual property to Microsoft in this deal, and nothing else. Feel free to review the evidence for yourself. The alternative explanations seem less generous.
I don’t think the sky is falling w.r.t. OpenGL, I don’t have any fears I want to expound upon. Most of my posts here have been trying to avoid the facts getting snowed by confused posts & posters.
[This message has been edited by dorbie (edited 01-17-2002).]
Originally posted by dorbie:
[b]
I’m making my facetious observation that graphics is “non core” at SGI based on SGI’s documented statements about the transfer of “non core” intellectual property to Microsoft in this deal, and nothing else.
[/b]
Dorbie, I don’t see the statement mentioned “graphics”, how did you know they are patents about “graphics”?