if someone studied this new molecule, and found that it worked against a disease by triggering a series of reactions, then no patents would be broken when a new molecule is constructed that can do the same thing. As a chemist, you would probably want to 'reverse engineer' both of them, under a big electron microscope or something. " SRC="images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by fishy on Wed Jan 24th at 6:40am 2007
Posted by fishy on Wed Jan 24th at 6:40am 2007
i eat paint
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by wil5on on Wed Jan 24th at 6:58am 2007
wil5on
member
1733 posts
323 snarkmarks
Registered: Dec 12th 2003
Location: Adelaide
Occupation: Mapper
Posted by wil5on on Wed Jan 24th at 6:58am 2007
Yeah Tracer, its a slightly different problem. For one thing, the exact makeup of the chemical can be described in the patent, but there are infinitely many minor changes you can make to software that can make it look different from whatever is in the patent. How different it has to be from the patent is a grey area for the courts to decide, if and when it happens. I doubt there would be any patent infringements involved in, say, creating a DX library for Linux (or Doors) since a different OS would neccessarily change the way the functions are implemented.
wil5on
member
1733 posts
323 snarkmarks
Registered: Dec 12th 2003
Location: Adelaide
Occupation: Mapper
"If you talk at all during this lesson, you have detention. Do you understand?"
- My yr11 Economics teacher
- My yr11 Economics teacher
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by Crono on Wed Jan 24th at 7:06am 2007
You're right, if it's a patented product, it is illegal. Software, I think, is a little different, because, specifically what we were speaking about is developing something that is compatible and not necessarily a replacement (since it would be operating on a different platform). I know, in this specific situation, that it is legal to reverse engineer DirectX, since the WineX project has been doing it for years. (Through observation). The way they snag you in software is if you use someone else's code, since you can actually own that. You can own an implementation of an algorithm, but not the algorithm it self.
I believe they're in that realm of "unpatentable things".
You also can't patent something that is a natural progression from an existing product. (Like, adding a heat sync to a processor, which has been battled out in many cases), it's just like the next step in development and the court will say, "you can patent that" and revoke the patent.
The only reason I know these specific things is because in one of my courses (Ethics in Computer Science), we got the chance to speak to a patent lawyer who handles engineering clients and he explained a lot of intricacies about how the law works.
I think, if you developed something compatible to DirectX, but you didn't use any of Microsoft's implementation, you would be fine in court. To note, EULAs are often illegal agreements, since they give the developer far too much power and because of this they don't tend to stand up in court.
Posted by Crono on Wed Jan 24th at 7:06am 2007
? quote:
I don't know a whole hell of allot about patent law, but I do think you could get into serious trouble reverse engineering a patented product. Patents typically cover a mechanism and a mode of use. For example, you might patent a particular molecular structure to treat a particular disease. (bear with me, I'm a chemist). Even if another company doing research into the same disease discovered the same molecule completely independently, they still wouldn't be able to sell it!
I expect the same would apply to a software application. If you mimicked a feature of someone else's software, and just happened to independently invent the same algorithm they used... I think you would get nailed. I don't know how likely that is to happen, but it seems like it could. For some things, there just aren't that many different ways to do it.
I expect the same would apply to a software application. If you mimicked a feature of someone else's software, and just happened to independently invent the same algorithm they used... I think you would get nailed. I don't know how likely that is to happen, but it seems like it could. For some things, there just aren't that many different ways to do it.
You're right, if it's a patented product, it is illegal. Software, I think, is a little different, because, specifically what we were speaking about is developing something that is compatible and not necessarily a replacement (since it would be operating on a different platform). I know, in this specific situation, that it is legal to reverse engineer DirectX, since the WineX project has been doing it for years. (Through observation). The way they snag you in software is if you use someone else's code, since you can actually own that. You can own an implementation of an algorithm, but not the algorithm it self.
I believe they're in that realm of "unpatentable things".
You also can't patent something that is a natural progression from an existing product. (Like, adding a heat sync to a processor, which has been battled out in many cases), it's just like the next step in development and the court will say, "you can patent that" and revoke the patent.
The only reason I know these specific things is because in one of my courses (Ethics in Computer Science), we got the chance to speak to a patent lawyer who handles engineering clients and he explained a lot of intricacies about how the law works.
I think, if you developed something compatible to DirectX, but you didn't use any of Microsoft's implementation, you would be fine in court. To note, EULAs are often illegal agreements, since they give the developer far too much power and because of this they don't tend to stand up in court.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by reaper47 on Wed Jan 24th at 9:43am 2007
Posted by reaper47 on Wed Jan 24th at 9:43am 2007
If you reverse-engineer DirectX, for example, will it always be slower than the original DirectX (like it normally is with emulations) or can you create a complete replacement that works just as fast?
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by Crono on Wed Jan 24th at 10:32am 2007
Posted by Crono on Wed Jan 24th at 10:32am 2007
There'd be no emulation. So it really depends. I mean, I don't know how the thing works, but I would imagine Microsoft isn't using the most efficient techniques possible, so it's very easy to modify and adjust the algorithms, as an abstract, then implement that separately. If you don't know what I mean I could explain in a bit more detail.
But, the short answer is: I don't think there'd be a huge slowdown. Especially when you equate that the situation we're discussing is a more efficient platform than Windows.
Remember, the way DirectX works it only works within its self, programs call DX functions that do some stuff. So you actually have a lot of freedom to change how things work just as long as the application using it isn't the wiser.
Now, emulation would be recreating the Windows kernel, in some sort of wrapper that makes it compatible with the Linux (or Door) kernel and operating system, then running DirectX unaltered on top of that. I guess you could also emulate it by calling other functions inside. I believe Direct3D, for example, writes stuff to the video card on it's own, where in the implementation I'm talking about would use the OpenGL API, so there's a small amount of overhead, but I wouldn't think it'd be by much. It certainly wouldn't be a concern for many games out right now.
But, the short answer is: I don't think there'd be a huge slowdown. Especially when you equate that the situation we're discussing is a more efficient platform than Windows.
Remember, the way DirectX works it only works within its self, programs call DX functions that do some stuff. So you actually have a lot of freedom to change how things work just as long as the application using it isn't the wiser.
Now, emulation would be recreating the Windows kernel, in some sort of wrapper that makes it compatible with the Linux (or Door) kernel and operating system, then running DirectX unaltered on top of that. I guess you could also emulate it by calling other functions inside. I believe Direct3D, for example, writes stuff to the video card on it's own, where in the implementation I'm talking about would use the OpenGL API, so there's a small amount of overhead, but I wouldn't think it'd be by much. It certainly wouldn't be a concern for many games out right now.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by Orpheus on Wed Jan 24th at 10:57am 2007
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
The best things in life, aren't things.
Posted by Orpheus on Wed Jan 24th at 10:57am 2007
I know that this is unrelated but look at the music industry. The guy who wrote the Ghost buster tune wants to sue Huey Lewis for a similarity between the GB theme and I wanna new drug?
Personally I see no similarity, but it seems to me that there are a finite amount of ways to string notes and some are gonna bump into each other in a similar way.
Same seems true with lining up 1's and 0's.
/ruminating
Orpheus
member
13860 posts
1547 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 26th 2001
Location: Long Oklahoma - USA
Occupation: Long Haul Trucking
The best things in life, aren't things.
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by reaper47 on Wed Jan 24th at 5:32pm 2007
Posted by reaper47 on Wed Jan 24th at 5:32pm 2007
Copyright laws are going down anyway. The fights are getting ridiculous lately, downright desperate.
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by Tracer Bullet on Wed Jan 24th at 5:37pm 2007
Tracer Bullet
member
2271 posts
367 snarkmarks
Registered: May 22nd 2003
Location: Seattle WA, USA
Occupation: Graduate Student (Ph.D)
Posted by Tracer Bullet on Wed Jan 24th at 5:37pm 2007
Cool, Crono. I didn't know you couldn't patent an algorithm. It's nice to know, but it seems a bit odd. I would have thought that novel algorithms would be a big IP area.
Tracer Bullet
member
2271 posts
367 snarkmarks
Registered: May 22nd 2003
Location: Seattle WA, USA
Occupation: Graduate Student (Ph.D)
Some people are like slinkys...
They aren?t really good for anything, but you can't help but laugh when one tumbles down the stairs.
They aren?t really good for anything, but you can't help but laugh when one tumbles down the stairs.
Re: QQ. A quick question from da_killa
Posted by Crono on Wed Jan 24th at 8:06pm 2007
Posted by Crono on Wed Jan 24th at 8:06pm 2007
Well, there's a good chance that Direct3D uses a lot of well known graphics algorithms anyway.
I don't think Microsoft is the type of company that "pushes the frontier" on new and faster algorithms. They tend to use other people's products for simple things as a basis then go from there. So, there's a really good chance that there's little to no difference between how D3D draws polygons and how OGL draws them. That's what I would expect, in any case.
Also, be aware that I was altering the algorithms after they were derived to make them more efficient. So, technically, they're not the same any more either. Even if it were patentable, they'd be different enough while still retaining compatibility, that they wouldn't be the same. You can't sue someone because their program does the same thing, you can only sue them if the code is the same. And if you can prove that there's no other realistic way to implement parts that are very very similar while still retaining compatibility, there's a good chance you'll be fine.
Now, something I don't think would be legal would be releasing abstract algorithms online that show in detail a pseudo-implementation of DirectX. But I'm not sure.
I don't think Microsoft is the type of company that "pushes the frontier" on new and faster algorithms. They tend to use other people's products for simple things as a basis then go from there. So, there's a really good chance that there's little to no difference between how D3D draws polygons and how OGL draws them. That's what I would expect, in any case.
Also, be aware that I was altering the algorithms after they were derived to make them more efficient. So, technically, they're not the same any more either. Even if it were patentable, they'd be different enough while still retaining compatibility, that they wouldn't be the same. You can't sue someone because their program does the same thing, you can only sue them if the code is the same. And if you can prove that there's no other realistic way to implement parts that are very very similar while still retaining compatibility, there's a good chance you'll be fine.
Now, something I don't think would be legal would be releasing abstract algorithms online that show in detail a pseudo-implementation of DirectX. But I'm not sure.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
© Snarkpit.net 2001 - 2023, about us, donate, contact
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 0.0144 seconds.
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 0.0144 seconds.