Patent Issue Delays Doom 3 Source Code Release 283
An anonymous reader writes "id Software is still planning to release the Doom 3 source this year, but it's been delayed by a patent issue that's causing John Carmack to personally rewrite some of the code. The patent issue in Doom 3 concerns the Carmack's Reverse algorithm and has led Carmack to rewrite it in the open-source Doom 3."
Human civilization fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Human civilization fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Can a developer explain this? (Score:4, Insightful)
The key is the scope of the claims in the patent, which is what defines what the patent covers and doesn't cover. Claims are not code, so they can cover multiple specific implementations of an invention.
As for Carmack's work as prior art, it would only count if it were published (or on public use or sale in the US) more than a year before the filing date of the patent (or less than a year if the patentee can't show that they had invented it before said publication/use). In any event, prior art on or after the filing date of a patent isn't actually "prior".
Re:About the software patent-- IBTT (Score:5, Insightful)
or whether patents should be issued for software in the first place.
I really gotta say, in cases like this it seems so insanely obvious that this should NOT be patent-able. Someone else came up with the EXACT same technique very shortly thereafter or simultaneously, without reading your patent or any of your work? If it really is just an incremental update, nothing novel but taking existing ideas and tying them together, it seems the opposite of innovative; it seems to me this algorithm was inevitable. If not these people, somebody would have very shortly thereafter discovered it. So why do we make such a big deal about who got there first? How does forcing everybody to licence a technology from that person that they could feasibly develop on their own, Chinese clean-room style, HELP innovation?
/. book, but seriously, they're doing some real harm to the industry. Its not just MS, but they're a big nasty troll right now, and they have enough money they shouldn't need to resort to tactics like this.)
It doesn't. Software patents do not help. They hurt. Companies like Microsoft buy tons of patents from college kids for pennies and then sit on them with no intention of actually using the patent described, just so they can litigate or strong-arm other companies into paying fees. Free money! This actually HELPS monopolies (I know ragging on MS is the oldest joke in the
I mean, think about it. Carmack developed this algorithm. Now he's trying to open source it and share it with the world for free. AND A PATENT IS PREVENTING THIS. Show me how patents "help protect innovation and creativity." This is so backwards it hurts.
Re:Human civilization fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually Carmack might find himself in hot water over this if the patent holders (Creative Labs) get litigious, which they undoubtedly will because in cases like these the patents are there so that they can be used to extort funds, much like trolls guarding a bridge, forcing payment in order for permission to pass.
I wonder if Id had previously settled with Creative about this patent issue, or not -- because Doom 3 was the most successful product launch for the company to date at over 3.5mil copies sold. That could be a big payday for Creative Labs if Id didn't contract this properly.
Re:Human civilization fail (Score:4, Insightful)
you do?
Oh good!
Fight a patent troll in court, win, and the judge will order the troll to pay all legal expenses. And like that, poof. He's gone! (And your company is lumbered with all the legal costs). Sadly it's normally just cheaper to comply, no matter how much evidence of prior art you have.
A few years ago we used to have conferences where people would actually detail how the technical aspects of their games worked. These days a patent troll would be at the back of the conference, and would have submitted a patent application before the speaker had even finished presenting. It's no wonder that companies are so unwilling to let their employees write papers these days
John Carmack is a class act (Score:5, Insightful)
So Carmack is doing something for the good of society, and a commercial company chooses to add a roadblock. But rather than give up, he spends his own time to rewrite the algorithm in a way that avoids the patent. That is a phenomenal level of dedication to the open-source community. He doesn't have to release the code. He doesn't have to rewrite that section.
Thank you John.
this is an amazing thing for Id/Carmack to do (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Human civilization fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Human civilization fail (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you know anything about anything? What exactly do you think EAX is? What exactly do you think Carmack's Reverse is? Lurk moar.
CAPTCHA: cruddy
Re:About the software patent-- IBTT (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what patents do, create a scramble to invent as fast as possible and run to the patent office. The downside is of course that the innovation is locked up in a patent the next 20 years. You can argue that this is wrong but that's roughly the way it's worked since Edison and Bell, there's nothing special related to software here.
The "scramble" you speak of isn't worth the cost of locking out algorithms for 20 years. People are already "scrambling" on their own, making good software and selling it is plenty incentive already. Having a copyright on the software is good enough. You can get out first, you can get market recognition, you don't need to have a monopoly on the underlying algorithm. Its massive overkill that is going to hamstring development and turn companies like Microsoft into patent trolls that don't produce anything of their own. They now make more money from Android fees and litigation than they do from Windows Phone.
There is something special related to software. Algorithms can be converted to lambda calculus; they are mathematical formula. Mathematical formula are exempt from patentability for a reason; they are not your own creative solution, but rather exist inherent to the universe, they are part of the space we all exist in, and you are merely describing a method, not creating a work of art or a novel invention.
Re:Human civilization fail (Score:5, Insightful)
world renowned for having not done a damn thing worth mentioning since the SoundBlaster
Chronology of most tech companies:
-Genius Engineer develops tech
-Salesman buddy helps start company
-Product becomes sucessfull
-Salesman brings in more of his salesman/lawyer buddies to grow company
-Group of salesmen/lawyers push genius engineer to some obscure corner of the company
-Innovation slows to crawl or stops entirely
-Company floats for the next decade or two off litigation and anti-competitive licensing while salesmen/lawyers rake in $$
-Another genius engineer somewhere else develops better tech
-Company devoid of any innovation fades into obscurity
Re:Human civilization fail (Score:2, Insightful)
At least EAX worked, unlike some of the earlier sound driver APIs in Linux land.
Re:John Carmack on Software Patents (Score:2, Insightful)
I fully agree with Carmack, and I don't see why I would feel differently if I was designing toasters, hammers or microscope objectives.
Re:Human civilization fail (Score:4, Insightful)
Non-obviousness, you know one of the patent criteria.
Surely Carmack discovering it independently doesn't make it obvious.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Will we get the original source, too? (Score:4, Insightful)
It sounds like Carmack is implementing a workaround to the Creative patent. That's very decent of him, but there's still nothing preventing release of the original (claimed infringing) source code. At worst, anyone who *used* the source would be infringing but publishing it would not be a problem (the patent is disclosed by definition, after all).
Seeing the original implementation side-by-side with the new workaround would be incredibly interesting, I think.
Re:Human civilization fail (Score:5, Insightful)
-Another genius engineer somewhere else develops better tech
-Company devoid of any innovation fades into obscurity
Correction: Company devoid of any innovation sues new company out of existence, this is the reality of the current market thanks to the patent mess we have.