Patents May Cause Issues For OpenGL 3 In Mesa

[snogglethorpe]

The thing that concerns me is that we're getting told that a data structure (that's all a render target is within the API) is covered by patent(s).

Indeed. Specialized compressed texture formats at least probably embody some cleverness, which may conceivably be eligible for a patent, but completely obvious and straight-forward extensions of older concepts like floating-point textures or render targets should not be patentable, regardless of whether you support software patents or not.

If they indeed are patented, it seems likely to be due to the usual cluelessness on the part of the patent office when it comes to software issues, and so should be a good candidate for being overturned.

[There should really be a penalties against the patent examiner granting sufficiently idiotic patents -- and against the applicant for requesting them. The only way this crap will stop is if there's some reason for them to care...]

[Yfrwlf]

My opinion has always been "screw 'em, they can't sue us all".

Whose fault are these patents, and do they have any products we can boycott?

Fully agreed. Basically, laws that are not by the majority are BS, everyone knows that companies are the only ones pushing these and that the U.S. is controlled by corporate interests. Possibly the best way the public can rebel against BS like this when the government doesn't want to listen to them is by ignoring the law.

Fight against patents by treading on them, IMO. That's the only way to get the issue noticed, is when some company tries throwing a fit over it.

Sure, several OSS-related companies don't want to be the ones to stand up against patents, but it has to happen sometime and someone has to do it.

[drag]

You guys are delusional.

No company wants to go up and fight software patents all the way to the supreme court.

Why? Becuase there is a decent chance that the supreme court will upheld the software patent and we would be stuck with it for centuries!!

[Yfrwlf]

You guys are delusional.

No company wants to go up and fight software patents all the way to the supreme court.

Why? Becuase there is a decent chance that the supreme court will upheld the software patent and we would be stuck with it for centuries!!

Laws are created by citizens and with enough force common sense can eventually get pushed through. It's not like the Supreme Court are a bunch of gods or something.

Regardless, the key is you can't stop the sharing of information and collaboration, so patents, copyrights, and all other forms of attempts to block idea sharing will always fail. It's only a matter of the corporations finally being put in their places after enough resistance takes place.

[V!NCENT]

Let's all calm down...

First step: Identify the actual patents
Would Mesa actually be infringing patents if it was to follow the OpenGL3 reference?

Next step: If mesa would be infringing, can we work around it?
Is this going to hurt performance? If so is this acceptable yes or no?

Third step: Do what must be done
Contact the FSF.

[krazy]

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/10/red-hat-bilski-brief-says-software-patents-stifle-innovation.ars

Go Red Hat! Hopefully, the many examples of stifled innovation will see some kind of reforms pushed through..

[Ranguvar]

You guys are delusional.

No company wants to go up and fight software patents all the way to the supreme court.

Why? Becuase there is a decent chance that the supreme court will upheld the software patent and we would be stuck with it for centuries!!

LOL... see the last poster's link... such epic timing.

And that statement is completely false. See the LWN comments: http://lwn.net/Articles/355244/

[nhaehnle]

The thing that concerns me is that we're getting told that a data structure (that's all a render target is within the API) is covered by patent(s).

Totally agree.

Even if you're a friend of software patents, what is there to patent about floating-point framebuffers? Floating-point is well known, framebuffers, are well-known, all you're doing is exchanging one type for another. There is simply no invention there and there should therefore not be a valid patent.

[nanonyme]

Laws are created by citizens and with enough force common sense can eventually get pushed through. It's not like the Supreme Court are a bunch of gods or something.

They pretty much are unless the majority of the population are holding them at a gunpoint as part of a revolution.

[yogi_berra]

Laws are created by citizens and with enough force common sense can eventually get pushed through.

In theory this is correct, the reality is that the current situation with patents in the US didn't go through Congress and was not created by citizens or the courts.

The situation was created by the Patent Office issuing of a broad statement that allowed for everything short of a human being to be patented after a lengthy legal battle over the patentability of lab mice used in cancer research.

btw - the FSF is an ineffectual lobbying agent, you will get better results by contacting your elected officials directly about reforming _all_ of patent law than allowing a minor non-profit to speak for you on the sole basis of software patents.