Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software

MS Buys (Some) SGI Patents 325

Posted by Hemos from the render-faster-and-faster dept.
FatRatBastard writes "The Reg. is reporting that Microsoft has purchased the rights to most of SGI's 3D patents. Speculation from the Reg hacks is that MS may want the patents more for crushing OpenGL support than for technology they're building inhouse." Well, crush is strong - but it would give them more leverage with some hardware vendors for sure.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MS Buys (Some) SGI Patents More

MS Buys (Some) SGI Patents

Comments Filter:

  • 'crush' OpenGL (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nsanit ( 153392 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @01:32PM (#2849347) Homepage
    I know the original posting said it was strong language, but there are just too many games out there that use OpenGL that are too popular to be crushed.

    Besides, OpenGL is goverened by a board of companies, not just SGI.

    • Re:'crush' OpenGL (Score:5, Interesting)

      by T.E.D. ( 34228 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @01:37PM (#2849390)
      Besides, OpenGL is goverened by a board of companies, not just SGI.

      It doesn't matter who "governs" OpenGL. All Microsoft has to do to kill it now is refuse to license their 3D patents to any hardware vendor who chooses to make OpenGL drivers instead of DirectX.
      • T.E.D.: It doesn't matter who "governs" OpenGL. All Microsoft has to do to kill it now is refuse to license their 3D patents to any hardware vendor who chooses to make OpenGL drivers instead of DirectX.

        Or even in addition to DirectX.

        -- MarkusQ

        • SGI had that power as well. They chose to sell that power to microsoft. They were not forced. Just because you like SGI's policies better than Microsoft's policies does not invalidate the right of ownership. (Assuming for the argument, that the patents in question are legitimate non-trivial patents)

          • Re:'crush' OpenGL (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Mr_Matt ( 225037 )
            It's not so much that Microsoft has the right to purchase these patents as to what Microsoft intends to do with them, now that they own them. It's still too early to tell, of course - even putting aside my own perspective as a "Linux Zealot (TM)" it wouldn't be fair to assume that Microsoft will necessarily Do The Wrong Thing. What worries people (and me) is Microsoft's track record.

            You're absolutely right - SGI had the same power to lord OpenGL over the masses, and they have sold that power. What is troublesome is the fact that SGI let OpenGL live, and Microsoft may not.
            • If SGI sold those rights to Microsoft, with full knowledge of what MS may do with them, then SGI is no better than MS.

              They wanted money, the just let MS do the dirty work in exchange for the money. :)

              • Re:'crush' OpenGL (Score:2, Informative)

                by davechen ( 247143 )
                Well, SGI's stock hit a low of 31 cents last fall, so I'm guessing they desperately needed the money to stay alive. They sold off the only thing of any value that they had left. For the past couple of years its been a question of whether or not SGI could manage to stay alive. Even though the stock has rebounded to $2.61, I'm still not optimistic.

                dave
            • One thing about MS' track record is that they do have a history of having their own products compete with themselves and letting the market decide which one survives. Argueably, DirectX has already beaten OpenGL, so maybe that's a moot point.

              As a patent, though, this could be very bad if MS decides it wants OpenGL to die, since patents cover ALL implementations of the concept covered in the patent. As such, MS essentially owns mesa, and that makes me very uncomfortable.

              One can always hope, though, for legal relief. Perhaps this will be the case that kills software patents?


          • Just because you like SGI's policies better than Microsoft's policies does not invalidate the right of ownership

            No, that doesn't invalidate it, assuming you believe that the "right of ownership" of knowledge was ever valid in the first place. However, if you've believed all along that the very concept that it's possible in any sense to "own" knowledge, information, and ideas was bad, dangerous, and destructive, then this is just one more reason why.
      • It doesn't matter who "governs" OpenGL. All Microsoft has to do to kill it now is refuse to license their 3D patents to any hardware vendor who chooses to make OpenGL drivers instead of DirectX.

        No one makes OpenGL drivers "instead of" DirectX. Every card I'm aware of supports both. I assure you, if Microsoft were to try something so predatory, there would be a huge backlash. (Microsoft does sit on the OpenGL ARB by the way.) I wouldn't worry about the future of OpenGL unless viable alternatives are found for both Linux (Unix) and Macintosh. I find that highly unlikely.

        My guess is this is more aimed at leverage versus NVIDIA, Microsoft's Xbox chip supplier.

        299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!

      • Re:'crush' OpenGL (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @02:11PM (#2849640) Homepage
        It doesn't matter who "governs" OpenGL. All Microsoft has to do to kill it now is refuse to license their 3D patents to any hardware vendor who chooses to make OpenGL drivers instead of DirectX.

        Microsoft does not have a history of using software patents to block rivals. Unlike Apple for example who used a copyright theory to block other companies attempts to use the Xerox-Parc GUI interface. Apple failed to intimidate Microsoft, but they broke Atari whose GEM O/S had a far better user interface as well as multi-tasking.

        Using blocking patents is not a logical strategy for Microsoft. In the first place it might well involve an anti-trust violation, particularly now that the courts have rulled that Microsoft is a monopoly. Most companies can refuse to grant patent licenses on whatever grounds they like, monopolies are considerably more restricted. The main strategic reason not to use patents as blocking tactics is that there is little point when you have 95% of a market.

        The only patent I can think of offhand that MSFT uses in a blocking fashion is the Kerberos extension patent. They make sure that people know that the technology is patented however.

        I can see Microsoft using the patents in several ways. One would be simply to stop someone else buying them and launching a suit. Patent suits are cheap to file and expensive to defend. Another reason is simply to have ammo to fire back if they were sued by a competitor.

        Probably the best reason for Microsoft to buy the patents however is simply for advertising, to project itself as a market leader in the 3D space as the successor to SGI. Another reason might be to enhance future XBOX versions (although chances are that Microsoft Sony and Nintendo will come to some reciprocal licensing deal).

        Incidentally if SGI is selling the patent portfolio I doubt that a sale of their other assets can be far behind. It is pretty much their crown jewels.

        The restrictions that MSFT might well make on open source use of technology they own the patents to would be requiring reciprocal licenses and prohibiting what they call viral licenses. The reciprocal license issue is necessary simply to maintain the 'defensive' aspect of the patent. RMS will get real tweaked about prohibiting viral licenses, but so what?

        • > Incidentally if SGI is selling the patent portfolio I doubt that a sale of their other
          > assets can be far behind. It is pretty much their crown jewels.

          My guess is that this isn't the crown jewels they've let go - remember Fahrenheit [google.com]? I bet this sale is all the co-developed technologies that came out of that (deadly) partnership.

          And I bet SGI is saying 'good riddance' too!

          Mr Thinly Sliced

        • Re:'crush' OpenGL (Score:4, Informative)

          by TWR ( 16835 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @02:28PM (#2849720)
          Apple failed to intimidate Microsoft, but they broke Atari whose GEM O/S had a far better user interface as well as multi-tasking.

          Bullshit.

          Read http://www.seasip.demon.co.uk/Gem/History/gem1.htm l. It outlines why Apple sued Atari over GEM/1. Basically, they just copied many interface features from the original Mac: disks on the desktop, trash on the desktop, even down to how icons and the toolbar were shaded. Apple didn't "break" Atari; they demanded Atari change these blatant interface rip-offs, and Atari did. After all of this was settled, there were GEM/2, GEM/3, GEM/4, GEM/5 and later versions under different names. Hardly sounds like "broken" to me.

          -jon

          • And let me correct myself: Digital Research wrote GEM, not Atari. The Atari ST and the IBM PC could both run GEM, though.

            -jon

    • Re:'crush' OpenGL (Score:4, Insightful)

      by grammar nazi ( 197303 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @01:43PM (#2849438) Journal
      1. Company A wants to improve their product.


      2. Company A legally learns/purchases/adapts technologies from rival product.


      3. As a result, company A's product is improved.

      This sounds fair to me. It even sounds *gasp* competitive.

      The grammar nazi doesn't have any problems with it. If Microsoft adapted many of the good technologies from Apple, Linux, etc. then I would probably start using it more often.

      • Step 3 has yet to happen, in this case. Of course one can't guarantee that Microsoft is trying to be anti-competitive, but given their history it's remains a possibility that can't be ruled out ahead of time.

      • Re:'crush' OpenGL (Score:5, Insightful)

        by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @01:52PM (#2849518) Homepage
        3. As a result, company A's product is improved.

        Often, these types of purchases are made just to run the newly bought foobar through the shredder. It's the easiest and most reliable way to win a competition. (On that note, I won't argue that its not competative .. just, in a bad way.) MS doesn't have much to gain from OpenGL, IMHO, and since the XBox, and Windows, etc is all DirectX'ed, I suspect they'd be more interested in running OpenGL into the ground than learning anything from it, incorperating it into DirectX, and then letting OpenGL go out in the middle of a large sunny grassy field so that they will meet on the market battlefield again. I mean really, I can't think of many companies that would do that in the first place, but MS would be the last company to do it.

        >If Microsoft adapted many of the good technologies ..

        What if they just bought every software company, and released a product that incorperated all the good technologies? We'd all die, cause what you like is different than what I like, so I don't mind having a choice and choosing differently than you. The notion of a 'right' solution is BS, so ensuring that fish A doesn't nibble on every other fish in the pond is critical to maintaining consumer confidence and a healthy economic ecosystem (nevermind encouraging competition and innovation). It'd be a very incestuous market with not much new to show for itself very often ...

        • Re:'crush' OpenGL (Score:3, Insightful)

          by SirSlud ( 67381 )
          It'd be a very incestuous market with not much new to show for itself very often ...

          ... which is to say that the MS in that scenario would never invent anything, and that all the other fish would want to stop living, cause everytime they had a new idea, it'd just be bought from them and bastardized for the masses. People don't do stuff just for money; people want to see their innovative babies through to customer satisfaction. If ideas keep getting snatched up and implemented by the guy who likes to ejaculate his products prematurely on the market, it ruins it for everyone. This is why I don't support the scenario you described as a particularly healthy one in the long term.
      • Microsoft needs more competitive products? Who are they competing with again?

      • Re:'crush' OpenGL (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Master Bait ( 115103 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @02:49PM (#2849873) Homepage Journal
        I think you've been reading too much Ayn Rand!

        1. Company A wants to improve their product.
        1. Company A wants more profits. (real world)

        2. Company A legally learns/purchases/adapts technologies from rival product.
        2. Company buys rival company or company's product. They have virtually unlimited assets to do this because they are a monopoly (real world).

        3. As a result, company A's product is improved.
        2. Company A discontinues rival company's product. Company A's product gains total market share, even though it is inferior (real world).

    • Re:'crush' OpenGL (Score:2, Interesting)

      by pmz ( 462998 )
      ...there are just too many games out there that use OpenGL that are too popular to be crushed.

      It isn't just games. There is a lot of genuine industry-driving software out there based on OpenGL. For example, high-end CAD systems on UNIX workstations (that have OpenGL-accelerated graphics hardware).

      If Microsoft denied a company, such as Sun Microsystems or IBM, the right to manufacture or distribute OpenGL graphics systems to run OpenGL-based CAD software, then, overnight, a whole enormous aspect of the world economy--mechanical design and manufaturing--needs to be done on Windows-based workstations. This really really really sucks.

      If Microsoft builds a world where I have to do software development, mechanical design, everything using Microsoft software and hardware, then that's a world where I will quit my career and become a monk. Having nothing is better than having Microsoft-everything.
  • Looks like MS wants to muscle in ILM's territory ...
    • I'm not saying that I agree with your conjecture, but George Lucas against Bill Gates? I pick Lucas, hands down. ILM has a history of innovation - Star Wars wouldn't have existed without it. MS doesn't seem to be angling for ILM (if this is about high-end 3D applications as opposed to games) as it is trying to stop Mac OS X from gaining a handhold in the industry via Pixar and Disney.

    • Re:First SoftImage, now SGI (Score:5, Funny)

      by Proteus Child ( 535173 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @02:03PM (#2849602) Homepage
      Looks like MS wants to muscle in ILM's territory ...

      There's a mental image - sitting in the audience watching episode II and the screen suddenly turns bright blue in the middle of a fighter battle...

  • I know that directx has improved greatly over the years making it much nicer and easier to use. Does anybody know if they're porting it to Linux?

    WINE supports it, but are they going to modify so that it can be used like glut and opengl in X apps?
  • I don't think that MS owning these patents will really help microsoft "crush" OpenGL. They're doing that already with DirectX.

    I have to admit, the one thing MS does very well is a fast development cycle. DirectX is a very mature, feature-rich 3d API. Everyone supports it already. The only way OpenGL can compete is to attain strong developers, maintain a good ease-of-programming and give game deisgners and card venders a solid reason to support it.

    • Re:More than gaming to graphics (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mr Thinly Sliced ( 73041 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @01:50PM (#2849500) Journal
      > The only way OpenGL can compete is to attain
      > strong developers, maintain a good ease-of-
      > programming and give game deisgners and card
      > venders a solid reason to support it.
      OpenGL aint just about the games man. If your developing a visualisation system of oil field sensor data, do you think you really use DirectX?

      Nope, you go to the real guns, SGI.

      Microsoft have a huge way to go before they grab that share of the market. For one thing, there is a whole heap of legacy apps in these scientific visualisation areas that rely on OpenGL backwards compatibility.

      Mr Thinly Sliced
    • Whoa big fella.

      "Fast development cycle"

      You do realize that equates to "we don't need QA", also "don't bother implementing the last 500 features on that list", and don't forget "don't waste time writing good documentation".
    • OpenGL 2.0 is due out "shortly." If you've followed it's deveopment much or read any of the proposed specs that 3dfx has released than you would probably feel differently.

      Yes, DirectX has a fast development cycle. This also implies that they release new APIs frequently and force code migration.

      OpenGL is far more mature as evidenced that even though no new OpenGL spec has come out for years it is still just as feature-rich as Direct3D.

      With OpenGL 2.0 having amazing support for pixel and fragment shaders and a entire reworking of the transformation pipeline, OpenGL will be able to PORTABLY do absolutley everything D3D can do now, and will be able to do for the next 5 years.

      Justin Dubs


      • With OpenGL 2.0 having amazing support for pixel and fragment shaders and a entire reworking of the transformation pipeline, OpenGL will be able to PORTABLY do absolutley everything D3D can do now, and will be able to do for the next 5 years.



        Not if Microsoft owns and refuses to license the patents!

        Microsoft has had its heart set on migrating the 3D market -- all of it, not just games -- to Direct3D. The Fahrenheit project was a collaboration with SGI to do precisely this: it essentially swallowed up OpenGL as a "legacy layer" on top of a New, Improved Direct3D. Microsoft has the money, the business clout, and now that SGI has bowed out of the partnership and gotten cozy with the Linux crowd, the motive to take the market by force on its own if need be. Must be nice to be a monopoly.
    • I remember the good old days when DirectX 3.0 was a major disaster for everyone involved--a lot of display drivers wouldn't work with DirectX 3.

      Fortunately, once Microsoft got to DirectX 5.0 things were way better, with much more hardware support. Indeed, today's DirectX 8.1 is a very powerful and mature API for sound and graphics in general, and is well-liked by many developers.

      IMHO, what Linux really needs is the equivalent of DirectX. I believe there are several Open Source development projects that is aimed specifically for better multimedia in Linux that uses DirectX-like API's.
  • They won't want to "crush" opengl, too big a market. This will provide a lot a leverage in that market, then they just "embrace and extend" the standards a little bit. Not like they've done that before!
  • Does SGI even own OpenGL??
    It's an open standard.. isn't that what the OPEN stands for?

  • Only the first step. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rothfuss ( 47480 ) <chris.rothfuss@NOSpam.gmail.com> on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @01:36PM (#2849381) Homepage

    I believe this is just the first step in a larger attempt by Microsoft to buy the entire 3rd Dimension.

    I'm really going to hate having to pay them royalties when I'm using it.

    -Rothfuss
    • I'll move to flatland. I figure I'll at least be a square. Maybe a pentagon.
      • I'll move to flatland. I figure I'll at least be a square. Maybe a pentagon.

        Be a square. Otherwise you run the risk of having little flatland planes flown into you.

        obConcept: In flatland, three fixed broadcast antennas can perform "GPS". But do you need "line of sight"? Are all EM waves polarized? Ahhh... no... not the "Physics in Flatland" Nightmares again. --
        Evan "I wanna be a line segment" E.

    • I can just see MS asking SGI about the thrid dimension....

      SGI: okay, take an ordinary square
      MS: slow down there egghead.

  • John Carmack on Direct 3D (Score:3, Informative)

    by green pizza ( 159161 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @01:36PM (#2849382) Homepage
    http://www.bluesnews.com/archives/carmack122396.ht ml [bluesnews.com]

    Now, I know D3D has undergone many changes since then, but without a 100% about-face, I doubt they could fix the major coding issues.

  • Not Just Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MasterBlaster ( 71519 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @01:37PM (#2849386)
    The last paragraph sums it up:

    Microsoft isn't in the PC hardware business, and it's unlikely that the patents will change its technical strategy. But they do add significantly to its bargaining position with hardware vendors, giving Redmond important new leverage. Rival APIs, principally OpenGL, are kept alive through the support of graphics hardware vendors. And for a hardware partner, avoiding a lawsuit, or gaining a contract to work on future versions of Xbox, may well outweigh the advantages from continuing to support OpenGL.

    I guess Microsoft trying to crush open source isn't just paranoia after all.

    • Re:Not Just Paranoia (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Faramir ( 61801 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @02:03PM (#2849592) Homepage Journal
      Au contraire... there is no reason to think that The Register is not just paranoid like the rest of us. Now, obviously, this is a pretty decent analysis of a possible use for these patents. But still these are vague threats to the industry that may have been cooked up to spread FUD about MS.

      There is enough actual reason to fear and doubt MS out there already. Before adding potential reasons, and spreading them as actual, can we have a reasonable discussion about them? Or is it enough for someone to make generic statements about "avoiding lawsuits?"

      Personally, I would like to know on what grounds anyone would be worried about lawsuits. I won't deny the possible existence of such grounds; I just want to actually hear what they are instead of speculate blindly.

      Would someone be kind enough to post a basic description of OpenGL's relationship to SGI's technologies, and to the company itself. Was/is SGI involved directly in the formulation of OpenGL? Could MS have purchased patents that OpenGL relies upon, patents that do not have "free" alternative implementations? Is there a GL that OpenGL is compatible too (like OpenSSH to SSH)?

    • Re:Not Just Paranoia (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Glock27 ( 446276 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @02:13PM (#2849649)
      And for a hardware partner, avoiding a lawsuit, or gaining a contract to work on future versions of Xbox, may well outweigh the advantages from continuing to support OpenGL.

      NVIDIA is the graphics (and glue chipset) supplier for Xbox. It is also now the sole supplier of graphics chips for desktop Macs. Apple is solidly behind OpenGL as it's strategic 3D API (as is the entire high performance 3D graphics world, for that matter). I'd be willing to place a large wager that NVIDIA (which has strong SGI roots) will not abandon OpenGL.

      One last thought - I think Microsoft would be very ill advised to try to charge more for the use of those patents than SGI was...and that cost should already be part of current hardware prices.

      299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!

  • How about they buy the "sgi" logo... (Score:3, Funny)

    by green pizza ( 159161 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @01:40PM (#2849411) Homepage
    ... so Silicon Graphics can go back to the "cube" logo!

  • remember Java (Score:5, Funny)

    by oo7tushar ( 311912 ) <slash.@tushar.cx> on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @01:41PM (#2849416) Homepage
    Remember how MS made their own Java VM and modified the language to suit themselves?

    Perhaps they're aiming for MS OpenGL (MS OpenJelly, lube up and aim for penetration)

    (please don't troll me)

    • Re:remember Java (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Snowfox ( 34467 )
      Remember how MS made their own Java VM and modified the language to suit themselves?

      Perhaps they're aiming for MS OpenGL (MS OpenJelly, lube up and aim for penetration)

      People have short memories.

      Remember Fahrenheit, the SGI/Microsoft/etc initiative for the next OpenGL plus scene graph?

      MS walked all over the specs, doing strange and troublesome things to it, yet only ever had two people actively "working" on it, all while racing to get Direct3D out the door before OpenGL (or later Fahrenheit) could get a hold in the Windows development community.

      As I hear it second-hand from an ex-SGI guy, SGI was pouring incredible resources into Fahrenheit, while MS was essentially blocking progress, while waving the promise of MS-acceptance in order to prevent their dropping MS' involvement.

      When they realized they were burning cash and talent to go nowhere fast, SGI eventually gave up and said "Stick with OpenGL and Inventor or whatever -- we don't care anymore."

  • On the Look-Out (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Alien54 ( 180860 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @01:43PM (#2849437) Journal
    Now that's an area that the three men in a boat - the proposed MS compliance body - might care to examine. We'll be watching.

    Personally, I think that each state should have at least one rep looking into MS

    It is a matter of trust. In this case, past performance is an indicator of future results.

  • Might bode ill for OpenGL based projects? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by starseeker ( 141897 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @01:48PM (#2849483) Homepage
    What does this mean for the use of OpenGL in open source? Are we going to have to start developing our own open source replacement for OpenGL now?
    • Open source OpenGL already exists - it's called Mesa, and given that SGI have not fought it (in fact AFAIK they've been quite friendly towards it), I doubt Microsoft would be able to... IANAL but I beleive if you don't defend your rights you lose them.. although I hope Microsoft's buying the patent rights doesn't given them a legal angle to pursue Mesa if they chose to.

    • Maybe we can convince NVidia to whip out the old Glide API [sourceforge.net]. Woo-hoo! The return of 3dfx [3dfx.com]!

      • I know this is offtopic, but... I found this piece of information from the 3dfx (soon-to-be-deleted) Website:
        Did you know NVIDIA GPUs are the graphics of choice for Half Life users? In a recent Valve Software survey, data captured from 35,488 Half Life user machines showed 67% of graphics were NVIDIA.
        Emphasis mine. Sounds spooky.
  • Tell me why, again, crush is too strong a word?

    -- RLJ

  • DirectX is actually good now... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MaestroSartori ( 146297 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @01:50PM (#2849496) Homepage
    Its a lot better in many ways than OpenGL (at least I think so). Its certainly powerful and easy to code for. It was a load of poo up til at least DX6, but now its surprisingly nice and object-oriented. They are of course targetted at completely different uses: D3D is generally Retained Mode, whereas OpenGL is generally Immediate Mode. I can't be bothered explaining what those mean, so go look in Google, but it does mean that DX is probably better for games, whereas OGL is better for most other things.

    • Re:DirectX is actually good now... (Score:4, Informative)

      by MisterBlister ( 539957 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @02:18PM (#2849679) Homepage
      How did this get modded as insightful?

      I happen to think D3D is better than OpenGL currently, if you're doing Windows-only game programming.

      However, D3D isn't 'generally Retained Mode'. D3D dropped its retained mode support (which nobody used anyway, and D3D has always had an immediate mode API) a while ago, back at DX5 or so. Of course, you're free to create your own scene-graph/retained mode API over the current immediate mode API if you like, but it no longer includes that API in the standard SDK.

      D3D used to have D3DRM, OpenGL has Inventor, both are/were retained mode APIs on top of the immediate mode APIs.

      Also, its extremely silly to claim that retained mode means it is better for games? How many games can you name that use a retained mode API?

    • That's not the point. the point is that OpenGL is cross platform.

      I don't think I'll be seeing DirectX on my linux box anytime soon.
      • Whaddya mean, isn't cross-platform?

        DirectX runs on Win95, Win98, Win98SE, WinME, Win2K, WinXP, and is presumably source-compatible with XBox. Sounds like all the *desired and significant* platforms are covered.

        The MS definition of cross-platform.

        (Sarcasm, if you can't tell)
    • Its [DirectX] a lot better in many ways than OpenGL (at least I think so). Its certainly powerful and easy to code for. It was a load of poo up til at least DX6, but now its surprisingly nice and object-oriented. They are of course targetted at completely different uses: D3D is generally Retained Mode, whereas OpenGL is generally Immediate Mode. I can't be bothered explaining what those mean, so go look in Google, but it does mean that DX is probably better for games, whereas OGL is better for most other things.

      Last I looked at it, almost every serious game was done in Direct3D immediate mode, and most recent changes to the API are there.

      OpenGL is perhaps only better for games in that it is a thin C layer on top of the hardware rather than a thicker COM layer. One can always write OO scene graph frameworks on top of OpenGL like Performer [sgi.com].

      Most importantly, though, is that every computing platform other than Windows that supports hardware 3D acceleration does so through OpenGL. I expect it to outlive Direct3D. :-)

      299,792,458 m/s...not just a good idea, its the law!

      • The world is much bigger than just games. Visualization of data is a huge market, and something I think is going to expand as time goes on. If you're trying to analyze your sales for 10,000 stores around the world then you're going to have very different goals than if you're trying to write the next Quake.
  • For more information on how much software patents suck, be sure to check out the League for Programming Freedom [mit.edu].
  • Well, crush is strong

    No, crush is usual.

    Dave

  • Here's an old USENET post I found (Score:3, Informative)

    by qurob ( 543434 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @01:53PM (#2849527) Homepage
    From: Allen Akin (akin@tuolumne.asd.sgi.com)
    Subject: Re: Licensing of OpenGL to Microsoft
    Newsgroups: comp.graphics.apps.softimage, comp.sys.sgi.graphics, comp.graphics.api.opengl, comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy, comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.graphics, comp.graphics.raytracing, comp.graphics.rendering.misc, comp.graphics.rendering.raytracing
    View this article only
    Date: 1996/02/21

    SGI licenses OpenGL to anyone, including all of its competitors in the
    workstation market. The reasoning goes something like this:

    1. SGI builds great workstations, but what really makes them
    useful (and thus makes people willing to buy them) is
    high-performance full-featured 3D graphics and imaging
    applications.

    2. Applications developers can't afford to support a large number
    of graphics APIs. The development and maintenance costs are
    too high, and since feature sets vary from API to API, it's
    difficult for an application to take advantage of all the
    desirable features of multiple APIs.

    3. If a single graphics API is supported on a sufficiently wide
    variety of machines (including SGI's), and if that API is fast
    and full-featured, then applications developers can
    concentrate their limited resources on that API and do a good
    job of using it effectively.

    4. The result is a larger number of good-quality 3D graphics
    applications that are capable of running on SGI hardware.
    This makes it easier for SGI to sell workstations. In the
    long run it also increases the number of potential SGI
    customers by making it easier for applications developers to
    create products for new markets.

    5. Of course, SGI's competitors that adopt OpenGL also gain
    access to a larger pool of 3D applications. However, this
    doesn't make a lot of difference to SGI, because we have to
    work to remain competitive in any case. It's important to
    understand this! *The competition would have become more
    intense even if OpenGL didn't exist.* Licensing OpenGL creates
    no significant new risks for SGI, but it does create new
    opportunities.

  • Hmmmm. (Score:2)

    by jd ( 1658 )
    1. Microsoft is found a monopoly, with excessive power, and a habit of abusing it.


    2. SGI, who were working on OpenGL 2.0, suddenly sell Microsoft a bunch of patents, the money from which may be keeping SGI alive.


    3. Microsoft may not be into hardware, per se, but you can bet that they'll either price the patented stuff out of existance, or try to mould it so that compliant hardware only works with Microsoft products.

  • If you don't like this -- speak up! (Score:4, Informative)

    by Derek ( 1525 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @01:54PM (#2849531) Journal
    If you really think (as I do) that this is an indication that MS intends to extend its monopoly by squeezing out competing standards and technology, then make your voice heard!

    According to the US law you still have until Jan 28th to comment [usdoj.gov] on the court's final judgement [usdoj.gov].

    I recommend you take a minute and make sure the US justice department hears your concern.

    -Derek

    • Re:If you don't like this -- speak up! (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JasonAsbahr ( 54085 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @02:26PM (#2849707) Homepage
      Honorables,

      It has come to my attention that Microsoft has recently acquired fundamental patents for 3D graphics technology and techniques from SGI. This is a dangerous situation, as it grants Microsoft significant leverage over the independent 3D hardware manufacturers who are currently supporting the only rival to Microsoft's Direct3D graphics API, OpenGL.

      Microsoft has in the past worked to delay and distract advances in 3D graphics technology, such as in the abortive "Fahrenheit" plan with SGI in the 1990s. During that period, SGI was transitioning from selling Unix-only workstations to begin selling workstations running Microsoft's Windows NT. At the same time, OpenGL was gaining on Microsoft's Direct3D in terms of features, hardware support, and developer support. If SGI wanted to sell NT boxes, SGI would have to agree to the Fahrenheit plan. The perfectly timed Fahrenheit deal slowed that advance of OpenGL by, among other things, reducing SGI's active promotion of it, and allowed Microsoft's Direct3D to gain a strong lead.

      Yet OpenGL support still survived due to the interest of software developers and the support of third party 3D hardware manufacturers. This latest move by Microsoft to acquire core 3D technology patents would finish the hatchet job, granting Microsoft the power to force third party 3D hardware manufacturers to drop support for OpenGL, and ultimately stifle competition and innovation in the marketplace.

      Please do not let this come to pass.

      Thank you,

      Jason Asbahr
      Game Developer

      • Re:If you don't like this -- speak up! (Score:4, Informative)

        by Performer Guy ( 69820 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @03:46PM (#2850339)
        Good post, here is some related background on Microsoft's suppression of OpenGL.

        http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/3d.html
      • Interestingly, while several people speculated that Fahrenheit was intended to kill OpenGL, from what I can see it actually saved it. Fahrenheit encouraged Microsoft to not knife this particular baby long enough to allow a reasonably strong set of OpenGL boards to be produced.

        Fairly quickly in the course of the Fahrenheit project, SGI realized that it would not be a good idea for Fahrenheit to actaully be released; because that really would mean the end of OpenGL. So, they dithered and delayed, rewrote and reimplemented, argued and agreed to disagree for a truly critical couple of years. That was long enough.

        Eventually the charade could not be maintained any longer, and Fahrenheit disappeared. Up until the last day, though, SGI made every appearance of being totally committed to Fahrenheit -- it was on the front page of www.sgi.com until the day it was killed.

        thad
  • I mean, there's probably a really good reason why MS is buying the patents. Like, perhaps they're sick of paying licensing fees to SGI for those patents?

    Duh!
  • They could use these patents to gain royalties on games meant for other platforms, not just ones made for the Xbox or Windows. Say, if Sony were to incorporate some 3D texturing method in the PS2 API that MS just bought.

  • My 2 cents (Score:2, Interesting)

    by vulgarDPS ( 525551 )
    What it looks like to me is that they are trying to get all the NVidia stuff. NVidia has a deal with SGI to view and write alot stuff that interfaces with SGI machines and OpenGL in order to rape the graphics possibilities. This is also why the linux driver for NVidia cards is half open source and half closed source. If MS can take that capability out of NVidia cards by gobbling up all the patents and not allowing NVidia to do this anymore then theoretically they could force NVidia (one of the biggest manufacturers of video card) to pull out of raping OpenGL for graphics and instead use DirectX. Then MS would be justified in stopping its support of GL.

  • Mesa (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Fembot ( 442827 )
    Does this therefore mean that microsoft can sue Brian Paul (the Mesa Author) for every penny he has and more if they decide to?

  • Not good (Score:3, Funny)

    by barole ( 35839 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @02:06PM (#2849615)
    Microsoft does not want OpenGL on windows because it means that applications aren't tied to the windows platform. Unfortunately for them, they can't say this openly - people need OpenGL and many will move to other platforms to get it.

    So, Microsoft says all the right things - that they support OpenGL and include it as part of windows. However, it is a bit like their half-hearted posix mode. Win2k does not included any hardware acceleration for Opengl (according to the register). Also, OpenGL on win32 is stuck at an old version (1.1? or 1.0) and extensions and more recent (eg 1.2) features must be used via their ugly extension mechanism. Microsoft backed out of their agreement with SGI on Fahrenheit - burning SGI in the process.

  • All of a sudden "just trust them" dosn't sound like a good idea when it comes to NVidea.

    Mark my words, if things keep going the way they are , NVidea will become the Troll Tech everyone originally feared. The GPL has more power for consumers then many want you to see.

    It was nice knowing you high end 3d on Linux. You will be missed.

  • Did MS purchase a license, or the patents? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Greg Lindahl ( 37568 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @02:29PM (#2849725) Homepage

    There's nothing in the Register article that gives any proof that MS purchased anything other than a license for the patents, not the patents themselves.

    So, as is often the case, this is probably much ado about nothing.

  • NVidia Driver Implications? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by BadBlood ( 134525 ) on Wednesday January 16, 2002 @02:33PM (#2849740)
    Weren't those SGI patents what kept Nvidia from open-sourcing their Linux drivers?

    Now with Microsoft owning them, the chance of a fully open-source driver goes...up?...down?...stays the same????

    • Considering the whole XBox arrangement (i.e. pretty much the same technology as nVidia retail cards but in MS's hands) I'd say the chances are nil - regardless of who owns what patents. My uninformed opinion only, of course.

  • ... you would have known that this was an issue before.

    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=25432&thresh ol d=0&commentsort=3&mode=thread&cid=2762096

  • Why? (Score:2)

    by gnovos ( 447128 )
    What I can't understand is how the SELLING of patents and copyrights is EVER a good thing. I can undersatnd that case for innovation and protecting people's ideas for a limited time, but when you allow those protections to be sold, they stop being used as devices to foster innovation, but as roadblocks.
    • does anyone, anywhere still think that patents are used to "foster innovation"? If so, then they are among the most gullible people on this planet.

Slashdot Top Deals

C for yourself.

Close