On Wednesday 25 October 2006 20:12, James Richard Tyrer wrote: > Vinicius Santos wrote: > > http://hardware.slashdot.org/hardware/06/10/25/1226209.shtml > > > > It seems that patents can affect OGP more than I thought. > > This appears to be yet another example of a patent that should not have > been granted. The basic claim is for a floating point frame buffer. > Since the previous art is a integer frame buffer, integer numbers and > IEEE floating point numbers, I can not see that this was sufficiently > unobvious to a person familiar with these things. > > Are we taking bets on this?
Yep. it's so blindingly obvious, I bet that SGI win. Is that cynical of me? IMO It's too obvious for it to have been granted in the first place. So I'd guess it's because noone in authority actually understands it. If SGI feels they have balls big enough to sue over it, I'm also betting that they think whoever hears it will be blinded as well... But I"m hoping that SGI lose... It's a bad bad patent from what I can see of it. Where's the invention in it? They didn't invent a framebuffer. They didn't invent floating point. They took two existing concepts & glued them together... Or am I missing something? H
pgpQaa5pSohKx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
