Open-source honchos trash software patents

TalkBack 31 of 318:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Re: Not one thing (rkadowns)

[quote author="rkadowns"]Everything here was already done by ATT, SCO, XEROX PARC, Apple, HP, or other R&D organizations.[/quote]

Close but no cigars. I am against smoking anyway, not for health reasons but for raising the average IQ of the planet

I actually stated that in my post but I also stated:

[quote author="The King's Servant"]The wheel is never re-invented but new --i.e., innovative-- ways of using the wheel have been discussed and implemented.[/quote]

Look up the word, "innovate" or "innovative" or "innovation" in a dictionary. Hey, try this:

[CTRL] +[T] dict innovate

If you use Fx then you should see this:

To begin or introduce (something new) for or as if for the first time.

which would mean RieserFS4 is innovative and a product of the OSS community. It would mean that the new memory manager in the 2.6 kernel is innovative and a product of the Linux community. It would mean that all the 'magic" file system developments under OSS and LUG are innovative.

You also seem to contradict yourself on what costitutes innovation.

[quote author="rkadowns"]Anyone with a moral standard would research their idea and not purposefully violate another's patent. Ever thought that an innovative technique like that might effectively void the patent on the books?[/quote]

So researching an idea to prevent patent violations or to void a granted patent is innovative? People have been doing that for years. Why do you suppose that some corporations have opened themselves up to patent lawsuits? They know that the plaintiff will not win because they are already aware of prior art.

If you still think that the things I mentioned earlier are not innovative because of the first part of the definition (the part not in bold text) then take my challenge or stop asking for innovations. According to your narrow deffinition of innovation, no one has innovated since Xwindows or Software Carousel. Now is the time to put up or shut up. Take up my challenge and write the stupid, simple, innovative routine to sort data.

[quote author="rkadowns"]As for innovation, a true innovative programmer would find a way to accomplish the same end result without violating another's patent.[/quote]

I believe we agree on this --ee my quote above-- and I gave you examples of how Linus and the entire open source community has done this. Apparently that wasn't enough so I will get even more specific.

Let's take Microsoft Flight Simulator (MSFS)published by Microsoft, created by MicroProse. Let's compare that to Flight Gear Flight Simulator (FGFS) by the Flight Gear Project.

''Flight Dynamic Model (FDM)''

FGFS can use several FDM's to be chosen by the end-user at run-time. MSFS uses a different FDM in each new version of their app which requires conversions of older aircrafts. Your FDM depends on the version of the software you use. FGFS includes the LaRCsim FDM, the JSB FDM, the YASim FDM and the UIUC FDM.

FGFS allows one computer to handle the FDM while anothe rhandles the scene rendering so as to improve performance. MSFS does not.

FGFS allows for new FDM's to be introduced as they are created without rewrites. MSFS does not even with their SDK.

'''YASim FDM'''

Most FDM's, including those im MSFS use aerodynamic coeffecients to calculate behavior and is based off of real-world data thus simulation of normal flights is realistic but unusual flights are best-guess. YASim has been innovative in that it uses geometry information and thus simulation of abnormal flights is also realistic.

It calculates the coefficients based on the geometry of the component parts of the aircraft, their speed, rotation, pitch, yaw, etc. and then calculates the total effect on the aircraft. This means that real-world data on the aircraft does not need to be first tested and recorded for modeling to produce real-world results.

'''UIUC'''

UIUC FDM goes further and uses a nonlinear aerodynamic model to allow for extreme flight behavior as well as changes in the aircraft so if an aircraft develops icing on the wings during take-off or landing, this will be reflected in the behavior of the aircraft in a very realistic way.

Although UIUC FDM is based off of the LaRCsim FDm developed by NASA, it goes further in innovative ways by using aerodynamic coefficient data from the component parts of the plane and then calculating the net effect on the craft. This allows for dynamic changes to be incorporated including icing on one wing only.

UIUC uses XML files and allows for easy creation of new aircrafts. It also allows for using a linear aerodynamic model so that aircrafts can be tested and flown before all the real-world coefficent data has been collected. It allows for current aircrafts to be improved as more real-world data is collected.

''Scenery Model''

MSFS scenery has been built up over the years by detailing each area over time and adding them to the package or offering them as add-ons. FGFS scenery was based on satellite, USGS terrain data and other geologic entity terrain data available in the public domain. They were therefore able to have entire world scenery data available from day one.

This would include towns, lakes, rivers highways, landmarks, etc. with additional details of buildings, structures, etc. added by the worldwide community of contributors.

''Sky Model''

MSFS sky model was originally based on creative imaging and included approximate lighting conditions for day, night, dawn and twilight (with sudden changes as your virtual time shifted from one zone to another). FGFS sky model was based on actual astronomical data including sun, moon, stars and planets for your specific real-time & date (from your HW clock recalculated for your virtual location) and location to place all the stars & planets and the sun & moon exactly where they would be so that you can use VFR and navigate by them in open water or barren countrysides by day or night.

''Rendering Engine''

MSFS requires tremendous HW resources to achieve consistent frame rates and smooth rendering. FGFS was designed to give smooth rendering on moderate equipment and would still take full advantage of all HW resources thrown at it without compromise.

''Interoperability''

Like MSFS, FGFS can run multiplayer systems across a network or have remote viewing across a network but FGFS can also operate cross-platform. The rendering engine and the FDM's and the instrumentation can be running on different computers with different architectures and different OSes. MSFS does not allow this.

FGFS can use multiple interfaces for multiplayer or remote systems communications including ethernet, serial and modem simultaneously. MSFS allows you to pick one.

I can go on but I won't. I think you will deceive yourself to claim that these are not innovations. If I am wrong, let me know. Post it.

P.S., the challenge still stands on that innovative sort algorythm.

Posted by: The King's Servant   Posted on: 02/03/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Server Consolidation and Containment With Virtual Infrastructure VMware To meet the constant demand to deploy, maintain and grow a broad array of ... Download Now
• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Iinfrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now