(thread created in order to not direct another thread off topic) Patents are created and licensed for physics/games more than one might realize. See Outrun 2006: Sega licensed a patent from Midway (patents originally granted to Atari, apparently from Hard Drivin') that performs "driving training" with a ghost car (5,269,687 and 5,354,202). Thus, if I want to include a "ghost car" replay type of system in my driving game, I have to be careful I don't step on the claims in said patents. It's not a big deal: that's how the world+business operate. Baraff, Witkin, Kass (collision detection, cloth) Baraff, Witkin, Kass (cloth, hair) Style points. Filed (RPA's: Regular Patent Applications, not yet granted): Synthesized engine sounds for games Physics Engine (impulse-based constraint solver) PPU hardware: Aegia PPU hardware: Aegia Parallel LCP solver for physics engines (Aegia) Aegia (Projected iterative descent method is used to resolve LCP (iterative Projected Gauss-Seidel (PGS))) Particle System patent Patent list on the Bullet Forum. PGS patent application discussion. Havok Softbody. Havok collision constraint+friction. [Edited by - John Schultz on February 20, 2006 2:39:41 PM]

Awesome! Thanks John.

Anyone shed any light on how close to a patent does one have to be to be in trouble, is it any small part or does it have to be an exact copy as filed? For example the Particle System patent, is that going to mean anyone with a particle system is in trouble?

thanks, thats good to know.

i really should contact barraf, if only so he might share with me some first-hand experience on such matters.

Quote: Original post by spookycat
Anyone shed any light on how close to a patent does one have to be to be in trouble, is it any small part or does it have to be an exact copy as filed?

The infringer's artifact must contain all the elements of at least one of a patent's independent claims.

Thus, if one substantially changes or leaves out any element of all the independent claims, the artifact will not infringe. Dependent claims are read in conjuction with independent claims. Dependent claims are a way of clarifying the independent claim(s) without reducing the breadth of the overall patent. Dependent claims help the reader to better understand the independent claim(s), and the nature of the invention. This is important when the patent is challenged in court. If an infringer's artifact nails an independent claim, and all of its dependent claims, they are most likely toast.

More info here.

Claims are really pretty simple: they are a form of boolean algebra in words describing what is covered/protected) (claimed) in the patent. Thus, the shorter, simpler the claims, the more broad the protection provided by the patent. The PTO will push back on broad claims due to prior art, forcing the patent applicant to narrow the scope (add more specific elements to the claim(s)).

*sigh*

"sythezised engine sounds for games"

To be valid, a patent must not be obvious. That one is so blatantly obvious that it should be laughed out of any court room. The sad thing is that it probably wouldn't be.

Sure, by all means copyright code which simulates engine noise, but ffs, patenting the idea of doing it is ridiculous!

I'm so glad I don't live in the US and can just totally ignore software patents :o)

Quote: Original post by Squirm
*sigh*

"sythezised engine sounds for games"

To be valid, a patent must not be obvious. That one is so blatantly obvious that it should be laughed out of any court room. The sad thing is that it probably wouldn't be.

Sure, by all means copyright code which simulates engine noise, but ffs, patenting the idea of doing it is ridiculous!

I'm so glad I don't live in the US and can just totally ignore software patents :o)

Apparatus and methods for synthesis of simulated internal combustion engine vehicle sounds

Quote: Original post by Squirm
*sigh*

"sythezised engine sounds for games"

To be valid, a patent must not be obvious. That one is so blatantly obvious that it should be laughed out of any court room. The sad thing is that it probably wouldn't be.

Keep in mind it is currently an RPA, or patent application. It has not yet been granted.

The (first) independent claim (which interestingly starts at 8, with many deleted claims...):

Quote: 8. A method of synthesizing sound signals corresponding to a vehicle having an engine, comprising: artificially simulating, in a non-vehicle environment and without actual vehicle inputs, at least one vehicle control parameter which characterizes a corresponding simulated vehicle operating condition other than an engine operating condition, and generating at least one vehicle sound signal corresponding to said vehicle control parameters.

I would agree that is too broad (and obvious) for an independent claim. In this case, the engine is an instrument, and phyical modeling of instruments is quite obvious and general. This would be akin to getting a patent on all physically modeled pianos. A specific implementation is a different story. The PTO should push back hard, and force the applicant to narrow the scope of the claim. Analog Devices bought Staccato systems a while ago.

Ignore the title, abstract, etc. Carefully read the independent (especially for over-generality) and dependent claims. Legally, that's what really matters (everything else in the patent is there to support the claims).

What happens if the PTO grants a patent that is obvious or when prior art predates the application? Absolutely nothing, other than the PTO makes money and the laywers make money. If the patent gets challenged when the patent owner demands fees, they will lose in court (if it even goes to trial), and the patent owner will lose even more money, while the lawyers continue to make money.

If the patent application has borderline claims, it's best (for the public) to challenge the patent before it gets granted. That's one of the reasons patent applications are now published fairly quickly after filing (well before the patent is granted).

Quote: Original post by John Schultz
It's not a big deal: that's how the world+business operate.

That's how the USA business operate. In a rest of the world (Europe for example) things are working diferently.

I'm always wondering how is it possible to make patent on something which is not really invention?

For example, Microsoft got patent on using electrical signals inside the human body. If one company wants to create device which can comunicate to another device over the human body, it must pay to Microsoft first. Where is an invention here?

Quote: Original post by bueno

Quote: Original post by John Schultz
It's not a big deal: that's how the world+business operate.

That's how the USA business operate. In a rest of the world (Europe for example) things are working diferently.

I'm always wondering how is it possible to make patent on something which is not really invention?

For example, Microsoft got patent on using electrical signals inside the human body. If one company wants to create device which can comunicate to another device over the human body, it must pay to Microsoft first. Where is an invention here?

i doubt such a patent would mean anything if questioned in court.