Microsoft IP claim

There’s a report on Slashdot that Microsoft is making an IP claim with respect to “vertex and fragment extensions” to OpenGL. Exactly what is being claimed? And when does the patent application reach the point where it’s publicly available for prior-art objections?
Is this a reference to U.S. Patent #6,417,858, issued today?

Well, the minutes don’t exactly go into detail. I mean, they’re minutes. The popular theory is that it’s to do with some of the IP that MS bought from SGI a while back, though that’s pure speculation (and speculation on /. no less) so who’s to say. The minutes do mention that those with questions should contact the MS representative on the ARB.

Of course, they probably didn’t mean us, exactly, but beyond talking to someone on the Board I’m not really sure how else to get the info.

Maybe some of the NVidia folks who hang around here could help us out?

I wonder if SGI sold Microsoft this patent:

“Method system and computer program product for shading”
US Patent # 5,880,736

Or this patent:

“Method, system, and computer program product for bump mapping in tangent space”
US Patent # 5,949,424

It seems like these would be directly related to shader implementations.

US Patent 6,417,858:
“A processor for computer graphics calculations comprising an entire graphics engine in a single integrated circuit. The processor includes a transform mechanism adapted to compute transforms for the computer graphics calculations. The transform mechanism includes a transformation element adapted to compute transforms using a dot product operation. The transform mechanism of the processor also includes a perspective division element, a color unit for lighting calculations, a scaling element for multiplication operations, and a look-up table containing mathematical functions used by the computer graphics calculations. The processor also includes a raster unit coupled to the transform mechanism, a texture unit coupled to the raster unit, and a shader unit coupled to the texture unit.”

Microsoft have rights over the GPU patent?

By the way, that patent is from December 23, 1998.

Quaternion, that’s a pretty vague discription.

Are concepts patentable. I thought it was only specific designs. Kind of stupid.

V-man

Kind of stupid

Yes, US patent law is crap. I personally think M$ are just throwing a spanner in the works to hold up GL more, so that they capture more market with their new DX. Stopping a standard vertex program api appearing in OpenGL, is only going to strengthen their position.

Why on earth do they have to bring this up? How long have ppl been coding vertex programs? IF ATI and nvidia can have them as extensions, why make the fuss, just when it goes into ARB status? IT’s not like they need the royalty money is it? Once again M$ shows itself to be nothing but a monopolistic company throwing it’s weight onto anything that opposes it’s own products.

Nutty

The conflict of interest is pretty clear. I’m not sure how Microsoft has a seat on the ARB when they have a directly competing API.

Oh well, such is the nature of the beast.

alan

Yes, US patent law is crap.

That reminds me of a story a few years ago in Europe: A clever person registered the name “Euro” as trademark for currencys before the name for the new european currency was fixed. He wanted licencing fees for it after the new currency was made.

Fortunately the european patent court is more flexible than the US is…

Hopefully there will be a solution to the shader problem soon (before OGL2.0). Cg looks good, I hope other vendors will support it, too.

Greetings
Overmind

Originally posted by Overmind:
Cg looks good, I hope other vendors will support it, too.

This is precisely why people are getting so wound up about the hold up in ARB vertex/pixel shader extensions. Without them, Cg will not be useful in OpenGL. It will only work with nvidia cards, so there’s little motivation to use it over directly using the vendor extensions.
If the ARB introduced vertex and pixel shader extensions SOON, then Cg would be an excellent stop-gap before gl2 is introduced.
At the moment, I for one am severly pissed off by the state OpenGL is in - you should take a look at the difference between my Direct3D renderer class and my OpenGL one, it’s staggering. The D3d one is readable, the opengl one looks like spagetti junction. I really should spawn off a few more opengl classes, one for every ‘version’ of opengl, but I really can’t be arsed…the d3d one is getting all the new cool stuff at the moment.
I don’t like this, as I prefer opengl syntax, but it’s just more productive with d3d.
ARB - hear my cries!

Good god! This whole shader thing is giving me a fuggin’ headache. GL2 will end up looking like a Camel (a horse designed by committee, if you haven’t heard that one before).

Personally I say remove display lists, remove immediate mode, remove fixed function (ehem) --> but provide similar through `default shaders’ etc.

Not practicable I know, but hey I really don’t give a flying duck anymore!

its all so ****ed up.
nvidia dont want vertex_shaders
ati dont want vertex_programs
no one wants cg
no one wants dx
all want united arb opengl 2.0
nvidia does not want gl2.0
all want arb_vertex_program
microsoft does not want it

bah…
politics, economy, laws, stop that ****

if that continues that way i’ll eighter stick to dx9 (dark force is strong, dx9 is easy, it is all standarticed and you get huge support) or i get into some linuxcommunity and start generating a new open graphics api from scratch. OpenGA
anyone with me?

Originally posted by knackered:
This is precisely why people are getting so wound up about the hold up in ARB vertex/pixel shader extensions. Without them, Cg will not be useful in OpenGL. It will only work with nvidia cards, so there’s little motivation to use it over directly using the vendor extensions.

Why? I thought that each company (3Dlabs, ATI, and whoever else there is) had to make a pluggin or something for Cg to work with their cards, with the current GL we have.
I am also surprised by GL 1.4 and 1.5 Why not jump to 2.0

Doesn’t look like that’s going to occur. As usual, each company has its own interests, specially MS. Hasn’t MS mentioned patents before in ARB meetings? They don’t say anything else.
ATI has given over IP for free a couple of times at least, which is special.

V-man

Originally posted by V-man:
Why? I thought that each company (3Dlabs, ATI, and whoever else there is) had to make a pluggin or something for Cg to work with their cards, with the current GL we have.

Aye, vman - the flying pigs are beavering away on the ATI Cg profile as we speak…

Originally posted by alanb:
The conflict of interest is pretty clear. I’m not sure how Microsoft has a seat on the ARB when they have a directly competing API.

Moreover, why do they have a seat in the ARB if,

  1. Like you said, they have a directly competing API
  2. Haven’t really contributed much of anything to the development of OpenGL from inside the ARB lately (if I’m not mistaken, if I am, please correct me… but I can’t remember antyhing of relevance)
  3. Have refused for years, to update the libraries and header files for GL they supply with their development tools

The point that urks me is, while all IHVs are in somewhat direct contact with the developers, for example via the opengl.org boards, or provide excellent (Kudos to all of the IHVs here) developer support per phone, email or even personally, MS as a member of the board that is the direct driving force behind the OpenGL development, mark you, isn’t to be found or heard of anywhere, anyhow, providing no support, no updates, nothing - except for slapping the other ARB members around with IP claims?
Excuse me?

To make myself clear, this is not targeted at a representative of MS who may be reading this (thinking about that, who am I trying to kid…) but at the business philosophy of MS in this case.
To make my point clear in a blunt way: You’re a member of the ARB. Either s**t or get off the pot.

Just my $0.02

If I was at the meeting, I would question them WHICH patent they are talking about. I don’t understand why this wasn’t brought up? Yes, the minutes was posted, but you would think that if it was important, it would be listed.

This could all be smoke and mirrors, used as a scare tactic.

Kinda like MickeyD’s saying that they think they have a patent on the way they salt their fries, so no one better do it!

If all else fails, just use ARB_BITE_ME

i agree, WTF are they trying to pull?

>3. Have refused for years, to update the libraries and header files for GL they supply with their development tools

isn’t this in violation of their agreement anyway?

is there anyway to kick a member? isn’t it obvious that they are not here to help?

It’s a bit rich of microsoft to play the patent card when its stolen so many ideas from opengl for direct3d.

While it would certainly be appropriate and gratifying to kick MS out of the ARB, I don’t actually think it would bring any benefits. MS could and would still throw patent spanners into the works if they weren’t a member. At least as an ARB member they’re obliged to serve notice of IP issues up front, which lessens its impact as a delaying tactic a bit.

The last set of minutes did make pretty grim reading though. All the buzz and clarity of the early GL2 push seems to have diffused into a mess of patent lawyers and not-invented-here stonewalling. Okay, that’s how standards committees work, but… :frowning:

I got into OpenGL because it was THE industry standard.

Now it’s becoming the industry joke.

I think the IHV’s of the ARB need to be alot more aggressive in pushing OpenGL forward. Unless M$ can back up it’s IP claims with substantial reasoning, and proof of why it needs to enforce these patents, they should be over-ruled. They do nothing but hinder the progress of OpenGL.

It’s a bit rich of microsoft to play the patent card when its stolen so many ideas from opengl for direct3d.

I know. They really are taking the piss lately. I know they will never get booted out of the ARB, as no IHV could ever afford to stand up to them. I find it very frustrating.

Nutty

I agree with you Nutty… I too got into OpenGL a few years back thinking it was the smart way to go (being the “industry standard”) …recently I have actually caught myself praying for the release of dx9 cowers in fear of retribution

As for MS still being on the ARB, I am sure you are all familiar with the phrase “keep your friends close and your enemies closer”