4 ms·

How does such an abstract idea get approval? Like Figure 4B. It's a diagram that basically says, if something happens and we need a new entity we create one...

How does such an abstract idea get approval? Like Figure 4B. It's a diagram that basically says, if something happens and we need a new entity we create one... Figure 4A is literally talking about adding to an array. Figure 1 is just a diagram of a computer? The abstract is just garbage collection...

trzeci 5y ago
The patent went through as it was described in the context of device - where a device is a core element of the application. Terrifying that went through.
Sanguinaire 5y ago
The patent system is just not fit for purpose. Even for pharmaceuticals and other long-development-cycle products in the real world it has been corrupted beyond reason; I worked on battery materials for a while and even though there was plenty of prior art, a couple of players had basically patented every metal oxide possible under the guise of a cathode material, even though most of them would be utterly useless. Until there is some penalty for such time-wasting chancers, nothing will change. The software world makes it even worse by removing the already low bar for a proof of existence or actual benefit.
jcranmer 5y ago
What the patent actually covers is governed by the claims at the very end of the patent, and most of the rest of the document is generally irrelevant, per my very limited understanding of how patents work. That said, I've reread claim 1 a couple of times and I have no clue what it is actually claiming.
- ska 5y ago
  > and most of the rest of the document is generally irrelevant INAL but this is incorrect. The rest of the document is mostly the disclosure and - critically - claims cannot rely on anything not disclosed. Importantly during the review process you can edit or amend your claims, but you can't update the disclosure without changing precedent date.
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    I should have been somewhat more precise with my wording. The document is generally irrelevant for the purposes of deciding whether or not your product potentially infringes the patent. It's not until after processing the claims, or perhaps during if you're unclear about terminology or meaning, that you start considering the rest of the document.
    - ska 5y ago
      Seems I misinterpreted your comment.
- kortex 5y ago
  > What the patent actually covers is governed by the claims at the very end of the patent, and most of the rest of the document is generally irrelevant, per my very limited understanding of how patents work. Correct. Only the contents of the Claims system matters to what is actually patented. Also, claims are subtractive/intersection, like all bullets have an AND function applied. So if you have a widget and it matches claim 1-8 but does not match claim 9, it does not match. That is, unless you specifically call out your "unions" - this usually looks like "the method of claim 8, but abc", "the method of claim 8, but def". That's how you do "unions." Kinda. This is a gross simplification.
  - greensoap 5y ago
    > So if you have a widget and it matches claim 1-8 but does not match claim 9, it does not match. This is not correct. If you infringe claim 1 then you infringe claim 1. Whether or not you also infringe claim 9 doesn't matter. Assuming Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, claim 9 includes all the limitations of claim 1. So claim 1 is A+B+C.... Claim 9 is 1 + D = A+B+C+D. So if you infringe 9 because you have A+B+C+D then you also, by definition, infringe claim 1 because you have A+B+C. Also, you can write a claim that has ORs applied. But the drafter has to be really careful with how it is done and it is not the norm.
    - kortex 5y ago
      I may have explained it incorrectly, I'm a bit rusty. I did a lot of work in pharmaceutical route development, where some patent does "ABCD123" and we'd do "ABCD456". My point is more that, patents are usually laid out like: 1. A method for crystallization of a pharmaceutical in an organic solvent with some counterion. 2. (1), where the solvent is ethanol, or methanol 3. (1), where the counterion is Cl, SO4, or NO3 4. (1), where the pharmaceutical is a COX2 inhibitor So that patent doesn't allow you to claim any crystallization route with ethanol. If I crystalize from ethanol but use mesylate as the counterion, I'm not infringing.
      - IdoRA 5y ago
        Considering the doctrine of claim differentiation, your hypothetical could still be infringing Claim 1. You’d have to consider the spec, among other things, to persuasively argue one way or the other.
- deorder 5y ago
  It appears to describe a data-oriented component entity system in which all data types within a component are assigned to chunks (batches) in such a way that they can be optimally grouped with data from components of other entities for optimal memory access.
- shock-value 5y ago
  My read (and from what I know of ECS) is that it's basically claiming a system which automatically organizes the memory layouts of instances of different types of "entities" (i.e. "type" meaning which "components" it includes) in an efficient manner. Here, an "entity" is just an object identifier (integer, or whatever). A "component" is a specific set of data relevant to some function (e.g. position component would have x, y, z floats, while damage level component might be a single float to represent amount of damage). ECS generally means laying out all memory for all instances of a given component contiguously, so in the example I gave you'd have one array for all position components in your game world, and one array for all damage level components. The "entities" are just collections of these components from these different arrays. So the "player" entity for example is logically composed of one particular element of the position array and one particular element of the damage array. This is more cache friendly when you have a "system" (say, the physics subsystem) which generally only operates on one or a limited set of types of components across many entities. There is no way ECS in general is patentable but their system which intelligently and automatically performs the memory layouting for their form of ECS (which also includes the notion of chunking these arrays into finite sized blocks) very well might be.
  - coldcode 5y ago
    It's basically describing using a slab allocator to arrange the entities. How is this new art?
    - shock-value 5y ago
      I don't know the details of slab allocators. Though if you are describing an allocator that does not have knowledge of what the memory is being used for (e.g. the difference between asking the allocator for memory for a position component defined as three floats and also a color component also coincidentally defined as three floats, versus asking the allocator for two sets of three floats without regard to their intended usage), then it is not the same.
      - jlokier 5y ago
- pclmulqdq 5y ago
  The other disclosure establishes prior art for other people and sets you up for more patents in the future with the same prior art date (continuations). The claims are the legally enforceable part.
- letsInvalid 5y ago
  Unity is claiming they came up with this: https://www.gamedev.net/tutorials/programming/general-and-gameplay-programming/implementing-component-entity-systems-r3382/ https://www.gamedev.net/tutorials/programming/general-and-ga...

trzeci 5y ago

The patent went through as it was described in the context of device - where a device is a core element of the application. Terrifying that went through.

Sanguinaire 5y ago

The patent system is just not fit for purpose. Even for pharmaceuticals and other long-development-cycle products in the real world it has been corrupted beyond reason; I worked on battery materials for a while and even though there was plenty of prior art, a couple of players had basically patented every metal oxide possible under the guise of a cathode material, even though most of them would be utterly useless. Until there is some penalty for such time-wasting chancers, nothing will change. The software world makes it even worse by removing the already low bar for a proof of existence or actual benefit.

jcranmer 5y ago

What the patent actually covers is governed by the claims at the very end of the patent, and most of the rest of the document is generally irrelevant, per my very limited understanding of how patents work. That said, I've reread claim 1 a couple of times and I have no clue what it is actually claiming.

ska 5y ago
> and most of the rest of the document is generally irrelevant INAL but this is incorrect. The rest of the document is mostly the disclosure and - critically - claims cannot rely on anything not disclosed. Importantly during the review process you can edit or amend your claims, but you can't update the disclosure without changing precedent date.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  I should have been somewhat more precise with my wording. The document is generally irrelevant for the purposes of deciding whether or not your product potentially infringes the patent. It's not until after processing the claims, or perhaps during if you're unclear about terminology or meaning, that you start considering the rest of the document.
  - ska 5y ago
    Seems I misinterpreted your comment.
kortex 5y ago
> What the patent actually covers is governed by the claims at the very end of the patent, and most of the rest of the document is generally irrelevant, per my very limited understanding of how patents work. Correct. Only the contents of the Claims system matters to what is actually patented. Also, claims are subtractive/intersection, like all bullets have an AND function applied. So if you have a widget and it matches claim 1-8 but does not match claim 9, it does not match. That is, unless you specifically call out your "unions" - this usually looks like "the method of claim 8, but abc", "the method of claim 8, but def". That's how you do "unions." Kinda. This is a gross simplification.
- greensoap 5y ago
  > So if you have a widget and it matches claim 1-8 but does not match claim 9, it does not match. This is not correct. If you infringe claim 1 then you infringe claim 1. Whether or not you also infringe claim 9 doesn't matter. Assuming Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, claim 9 includes all the limitations of claim 1. So claim 1 is A+B+C.... Claim 9 is 1 + D = A+B+C+D. So if you infringe 9 because you have A+B+C+D then you also, by definition, infringe claim 1 because you have A+B+C. Also, you can write a claim that has ORs applied. But the drafter has to be really careful with how it is done and it is not the norm.
  - kortex 5y ago
    I may have explained it incorrectly, I'm a bit rusty. I did a lot of work in pharmaceutical route development, where some patent does "ABCD123" and we'd do "ABCD456". My point is more that, patents are usually laid out like: 1. A method for crystallization of a pharmaceutical in an organic solvent with some counterion. 2. (1), where the solvent is ethanol, or methanol 3. (1), where the counterion is Cl, SO4, or NO3 4. (1), where the pharmaceutical is a COX2 inhibitor So that patent doesn't allow you to claim any crystallization route with ethanol. If I crystalize from ethanol but use mesylate as the counterion, I'm not infringing.
    - IdoRA 5y ago
      Considering the doctrine of claim differentiation, your hypothetical could still be infringing Claim 1. You’d have to consider the spec, among other things, to persuasively argue one way or the other.
deorder 5y ago
It appears to describe a data-oriented component entity system in which all data types within a component are assigned to chunks (batches) in such a way that they can be optimally grouped with data from components of other entities for optimal memory access.
shock-value 5y ago
My read (and from what I know of ECS) is that it's basically claiming a system which automatically organizes the memory layouts of instances of different types of "entities" (i.e. "type" meaning which "components" it includes) in an efficient manner. Here, an "entity" is just an object identifier (integer, or whatever). A "component" is a specific set of data relevant to some function (e.g. position component would have x, y, z floats, while damage level component might be a single float to represent amount of damage). ECS generally means laying out all memory for all instances of a given component contiguously, so in the example I gave you'd have one array for all position components in your game world, and one array for all damage level components. The "entities" are just collections of these components from these different arrays. So the "player" entity for example is logically composed of one particular element of the position array and one particular element of the damage array. This is more cache friendly when you have a "system" (say, the physics subsystem) which generally only operates on one or a limited set of types of components across many entities. There is no way ECS in general is patentable but their system which intelligently and automatically performs the memory layouting for their form of ECS (which also includes the notion of chunking these arrays into finite sized blocks) very well might be.
- coldcode 5y ago
  It's basically describing using a slab allocator to arrange the entities. How is this new art?
  - shock-value 5y ago
    I don't know the details of slab allocators. Though if you are describing an allocator that does not have knowledge of what the memory is being used for (e.g. the difference between asking the allocator for memory for a position component defined as three floats and also a color component also coincidentally defined as three floats, versus asking the allocator for two sets of three floats without regard to their intended usage), then it is not the same.
    - jlokier 5y ago
pclmulqdq 5y ago
The other disclosure establishes prior art for other people and sets you up for more patents in the future with the same prior art date (continuations). The claims are the legally enforceable part.
letsInvalid 5y ago
Unity is claiming they came up with this: https://www.gamedev.net/tutorials/programming/general-and-gameplay-programming/implementing-component-entity-systems-r3382/ https://www.gamedev.net/tutorials/programming/general-and-ga...