Microsoft Claims IP Rights on Portions of OpenGL 369
An anonymous reader writes "Minutes of the latest OpenGL ARB meeting reveal that Microsoft is claiming IP over the vertex and fragment extensions, both critical for exposing the capabilities of modern graphics hardware. The minutes also include an update on the progress of OpenGL 2.0." The question is, what does this mean for Linux -- how will Microsoft exercise their "rights"?
MS likes name recognition (Score:3, Insightful)
the more times the word Microsoft appears in front of your eyes, the bigger the smil gets on their PR dept faces.. Slashdot is probably one of Microsofts biggest PR machines. Remember, there is no bad publicity..
Mono developers beware (semi-OT) (Score:5, Insightful)
Ahh, how appropriate, I was just going to make a post on the "donate to Gnome" thread about how this whole Mono thing is a disaster waiting to happen (i.e., Microsoft will activate the .NET "poison pill" as soon as Mono becomes a threat, through patents or other means, and Mono users will have no place to go but genuine .NET).
Perhaps this OpenGL bit will blow over, or perhaps we should keep an eye on it as a sort of model for future Microsoft attacks on "open xyz".
Let's check the link, there are some quotes:
Ahh, there's the magic "reasonable" (to Microsoft) and "non-discriminatory" (except if you don't agree to the terms). How would this cross-licensing apply to implementations other than the official OpenGL?
Uh huh..what does "more effective in a corporate sense" mean exactly....
Well I don't know much about OpenGL licensing, or how much of this extension stuff is implemented in non-OpenGL implementations (like Mesa?) so I'll just watch and see what happens.
Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.theonion.com/onion3311/microsoftpatent
It's not too far off.
Not just Linux... (Score:5, Insightful)
How about the Emotion Engine on PC? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sony is the only possible contender to come into my mind. Without competition, how soon until 3D graphics are only allowed to exist on Windows? Are we only one generation away from that? Does anyone other than Sony have a similar "mature" technology for 3D graphics, with the market clout to back it up?
What incentive would Sony have you ask? Well, MS makes the X-Box, which is based on DirectX. Sony has an incentive in my mind to keep DirectX games from being written for any platform. This is not too far from reasons the PS2 Linux kit came out...to train developers. Sony could be the next competitor, the current being Sun, to step into the ring and throw off the gloves with Microsoft.
-Pete
No need to panic... (Score:3, Insightful)
As it is, the spec is still currently under work. If John Carmack (I suspect you're reading this) can use the new, shiny XYZ_vertex_program extension or simliar (which is of course very different to the Microsoft one) in Doom III, driver writers will naturally include it to make their cards run the Doom 3 engine, and we'll be home free.
Of course, although it might not be part of the official 2.0 spec they'd be free to include the old extension too, at their call. So, everyone wins except Microsoft, which should please the Slashdotters greatly.
In any case they've offered RAND licensing terms, so it doesn't look like they're out for blood this time. Since this whole article is based off a vaguely worded paragraph from the minutes of a meeting with no legal opinions offered, I somehow don't think that this will mean the death of OpenGL as we know it.
Re:It's not what it'll do to Linux... (Score:5, Insightful)
then OpenGL will survive solely on Linux (if it survives at all).
I'm gonna guess that there are now more MacOSX *desktop* users than Linux *desktop* users, so this could be a shot at Apple, who is moving their gorgeous-but-heavy Aqua interface to OpenGL in Jaguar for the purposes of hardware acceleration...
I still don't think MS cares a whit about Linux...yet.
BTW, (responding to a different post), I don't think John Carmack is a fool - if the OpenGL lake dries up, I'd guess he'd go fishing elsewhere...
If Apple has voting members on the ARB... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's not what it'll do to Linux... (Score:3, Insightful)
RAND licensing terms can rule out Open Source (Score:5, Insightful)
Bruce
Patent farming (Score:5, Insightful)
Bruce
Re:If Apple has voting members on the ARB... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you consider the makeup of the board, only IBM has any kind of direct interest in Linux and I really don't think they want Linux for it's amazing leaps forward in GUI design.
The remainder of the board all have their own fish to fry and none of them are direct contributors to Linux, AFAIK.
So, boys and girls, time to nut up and get some corporation to back the OpenGL initiative on Linux, which means someone's gonna have to make some bucks off it somewhere to cover the cost of all that politicking.
IP in OpenGL (Score:4, Insightful)
I thought that the writers of a standard which was designed to be open in its implemetation would be more careful so as not to include other companies' ideas in their product, whether it be Microsoft's of anyone else's.
Obviously intellectual property, as opposed to trademarks, patents and copyrights (i.e. ideas as opposed to actual code) is a fairly large, often equivocal area, but it seems that this, however innocent, could set a dangerous precedent. Microsoft is a business, and they are there to maximise profits. They have proved that they often use very unfair and illegal means to get to this end in the past, and this just seems to be a potential area of abuse once their lawyers get hold of it.
Re:Bash bash bash (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, OpenGL can function without the extension. This is not a blocking patent. If the group cannot get to satisfactory license terms the extension will be dropped.
This type of thing happens in all standards groups from time to time. And the right outcome is not always the same.
This is not Rambus style Patent smurfing where you patent an idea, propose it in a standards group and then at the last minute demand royalties. Nor is it patent trolling where someone looks at what a working group has done and makes a perjured patent application to grab the rights to the ideas.
The group itself is not getting up in a stew about the issue so it is unlikely that this is going to be a major problem. In cases of this sort the company with the IP works out whether they get their best return from making the IP free or trying to charge. In all but a handfull of cases the result is some sort of effectively free license.
There are cases in which people have IP that they think is valuable and they are not willing to license. But these are actually quite rare since most patents can be circumvented.
In this case it appears that Microsoft is offering an essentially free license. However making sure that things stay free means that unilateral disarmament is not the best policy. That is what the GPL is all about.
So in comon with most companies Microsoft are offering the technology on reciprocal license terms. In other words they will allow folk to use their tecnology if others provide access to theirs.
The minutes do not make it clear whether the terms are RAND and zero license fee or RAND with a charge. From the discussion it would appear to me that either the license is expected to be zero cost, or it is a group where there are lots of folk looking to profit from their patent portfolio.
So the huffing and puffing appears to me to be somewhat overdone.
Re:It means nothing . (Score:5, Insightful)
You're being naive. Microsoft doesn't care who implements it. Microsoft can reimplement whatever it wants to. They have more than enough programmers to do so. What Microsoft wants is a free license to use OpenGL 2.0. This is very dangerous, since normally OpenGL implementations need to be certified by the OpenGL group. This certification costs money, which is why the Mesa 3D people weren't allowed to call themselves an OpenGL implementation. If Microsoft can say that their implementation is OpenGL 2.0 without any kind of certification, then their version would be the de facto OpenGL, regardless of what the standard is.
If the OpenGL group blindly agrees to Microsoft's seemingly generous offer, the lawyers who make the decisions will hopefully explain that signing away liberties is not such a great idea.
Re:Curious punctuation (Score:3, Insightful)
That's IP for you. They bought the IP for OpenGL rights that SGI owned.
---"It smells like they are submarining a patent they bought from SGI, who in turn probably filed the patent as a submarine as well."
You damn right they are. If I was Billy, I'd buy up every rendering engine to force everybody to use _MINE_. And that's exactly they plan to do. For example, if you're running WinXP, go download GLTron and play it. WHOOPS! MS didn't include OpenGL drivers.
Simply, this is IE vs. Netscape all over again. Just a different terrain.
Re:It's not what it'll do to Linux... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:RAND licensing terms can rule out Open Source (Score:4, Insightful)
Nearly 200 comments later, and you'd figure some people other than a few moderators would see the eloquence of this statement.
When getting into a code-sharing agreement usually means somehow resolving the disparity between the terms of the licences. In a case such as this, the gap in the terms of use is enormous. This puts both parties on a very slippery slope legally.
The unfortunate part of this situation is that one side has vast legal means at their disposal, and the other is a bunch of specialized industry companies with a bunch of hobbyists driving the consumer segment. In the case that Microsoft does manage to take control of OpenGL, some companies would file suit, some would pay their fees, and the Open Source community would be screwed.
I'm not suggesting any conspiracy theory, just that Microsoft has made their "embrace and extend" policy for a reason: Because when they get their tentacles in somewhere, they are usually pretty sucessful turning the technology into something they can control.
I don't think it will happen this time. I hope it doesn't happen this time. However, cross-licencing with Microsoft is like pulling down your pants before being bent over a table.
Riding Bruce's coat-tails,
-jungleboy
Re:It means nothing . (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. Microsoft has been convicted of anti-trust violations by a court of law. In case you didn't catch that, Microsoft has been convicted of anti-trust violations by a court of law. Just so that everyone is sure to see it:
Microsoft has been convicted of anti-trust violations by a court of law.
Integration across markets isn't safe when these guys are involved. Microsoft has demonstrated time and time again that when they have any sort of leverage, the rest of the market suffers.
They didn't gain these patents in the course of research, they bought them from SGI for $62.5 million. [theregister.co.uk] Microsoft doesn't develop graphics hardware, so what could they have in mind for these patents that makes them worth $62.5 million?
Re:Not yet! (Score:4, Insightful)
Since they have already ripped code from BSD what would they need from another UNIX?
Microsoft is running scared of open source (Score:4, Insightful)
RAND, of course, means commercial cross-licensing. Microsoft is using this as a tactic for excluding open source. They know they can kill companies like Apple in the market, but they are deathly afraid of Linux and open source. OpenGL is a particular thorn in their side since it just won't go away, and Microsoft's own junky 3D interface hasn't been able to kill the competition. So, Microsoft is now trying underhanded legal maneuvres
I think the only way for open source to play will be to have an open source patent portfolio and to bring that to the table. Open source needs its own bargaining chips at the table.
Re:RAND licensing terms can rule out Open Source (Score:4, Insightful)
- Under the GPL, if you use someone else's (GPL'd) work in your own, you must release it under the GPL. In the situation you propose, if you use Microsoft's work, Microsoft can take control of your derivative. How is that more permissive? There's no irony here- Microsoft would be limiting the conditions under which you may release your work. And they're doing so in a way that is at least as restrictive, if not more, than the GPL, but doesn't benefit anyone but MS. Besides, the GPL does make software freely available to Microsoft- they just have to follow certain rules.
- There's room for interpretation on the issue of whether this is "Microsoft's technology". I assume SGI actually invented it; furthermore, the software implementation could be independent of the patent. The GPL forces you to release your code under the GPL if you incorporate GPL'd code into it. What we're talking about forces you to release your code under a non-GPL'd license if you use a certain abstract technological concept.
I have no idea what Microsoft's plan is, and I think this story may be overblown. But for them to prohibit GPL-like licenses is certainly more restrictive than the GPL.