9 ms·

One of the generally accepted reasons why its hard to get graphics companies to open source their drives has always been that everybody is violating everybody e

One of the generally accepted reasons why its hard to get graphics companies to open source their drives has always been that everybody is violating everybody else's patents. And while everybody knows this making it too obvious is a legal disadvantage. But I hadn't expected it was also true of copyright.

hddqsb 3y ago
This article is not about graphics drivers. The project in question is "advanced parking and driving assistance technology".
FirmwareBurner 3y ago
> everybody is violating everybody else's patents Violating patents is one thing, as you're only violating the concept/idea, but the implementation is still up to you meaning it will still be clean room design, whereas this guy also blatantly copied the source code and design files which is a slam dunk lawsuit, hence why no company ever wants to have competitors' IP on their systems.
- throwaway54_56 3y ago
  > Violating patents is one thing, as you're only violating the concept/idea, but the implementation is still up to you The concept/idea is not what is patented. The patent is (or should be) for the specific execution of the idea. Competitors are free to implement their feature using methods other that what is covered by the patent, even if the end result gives the exact same functionality.
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    >The concept/idea is not what is patented. The patent is (or should be) for the specific execution of the idea. Have you ever seen patents? They rarely cover the implementation details, or at most they're intentionally super vague about that, most of the time it's just the general idea on how the widget would work and what it does, but not how to implement it technically.
    - throwaway54_56 3y ago
      I have seen patents. The whole point is to share a method of doing something, in return for exclusive use of that method for a period of time. That's the theory, anyway.
      - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        Then you misunderstood or saw too few patents.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - anon373839 3y ago
        I’m sure we’ll all be glad one day that Apple shared this research breakthrough: https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/6/16614038/apple-samsung-slide-to-unlock-supreme-court-120-million https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/6/16614038/apple-samsung-sl...
        objclxt 3y ago
        You realize the patent you’re referring to was a design patent, not a utility patent? They are very different, the former only covers look and feel, not method.
        anon373839 3y ago
        I wasn’t aware of that. But it’s even more baffling: how did they qualify for a patent on the design of a basic sliding latch?
        criddell 3y ago
        A good example of a patent that was challenged in court and wasn’t totally invalidated is Amazon’s 1-click ordering. They patented storing customer shipping and payment details in a database so they could purchase something with a single click. It expired in 2017 but for the period it was in force, Amazon collected millions in licensing fees.
  - atq2119 3y ago
    Idea is a pretty general term. I have a bunch of patents and I would describe them all as patenting an idea (for how to achieve some goal). The implementation or execution of the idea usually takes the form of some Verilog or some C++. That is covered by copyright. The patent is for the idea. Which is part of why I'm so opposed to patents, not just in software. In other fields, like medicine, patents are perhaps for discoveries, which are IMHO similarly valuable as the execution. But ideas aren't that valuable, or shouldn't be.
  - dctoedt 3y ago
    > The concept/idea is not what is patented. The patent is (or should be) for the specific execution of the idea. Competitors are free to implement their feature using methods other that what is covered by the patent, even if the end result gives the exact same functionality. IP lawyer here (EDIT: not yours, of course): That's a considerable (and potentially-dangerous) oversimplification. What matters is whether what you do comes within the claims of the patent. (For a more-detailed explanation, written in pseudocode-like terms, see a 2010 post I did: https://www.oncontracts.com/how-patent-claims-work-a-variety-of-different-and-statements-all-ord-together/ https://www.oncontracts.com/how-patent-claims-work-a-variety....)
    - dmoy 3y ago
      Yea, this is a more correct explanation. Not a patent lawyer, but raised by one lol. Tangentially, it gets difficult in software because a lot of patents are .... maybe overbroad in their wording of claims. Lot of ambiguous looking landmines. This is somewhat similar to business method patents (which were curtailed a little by the SC a decade ago, but were already known to be kinda sketchy for decade+ before that). Can't patent a pure algorithm, for example.
    - david-gpu 3y ago
      At some point I was told to never ever look at a competitor's patents, because doing so would worsen the penalties if it turned out that our design infringed upon them. Can you confirm that's true? Doesn't that mean that in general it is also a really bad idea to ask an engineer questions about a particular piece of tech that they patented at a previous employer, even though the specific information is a matter of public record by virtue of being explained in the patent?
      - toast0 3y ago
        Willful infringement allows for up to triple damages. The expectation is you can't do willful infringement if you're not aware of competitor's patents, and you can't be aware of them if your policy is to never look at patent documents. Or that's the idea anyway.
  - conradev 3y ago
    The specific execution of an idea is also an idea, though I feel like the granularity of patents is defined more so by where the frontier of knowledge is for a given domain than the patent office (i.e. what is hard but also valuable). But, I also haven’t spent a lot of time with patents
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ip26 3y ago
Given independent invention is apparently not a defense against infringement, that makes a lot of sense. I can’t even imagine trying to screen the codebase for that.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  "Infringement" is not specific enough there. Independent invention is not a defense against patent infringement, but is a defense against copyright infringement.
  - chii 3y ago
    It's not easy to prove independent invention as a defense, because you have to have set it up to do so in the first place, not after the fact.
- kahnclusions 3y ago
  No, but a patent can be invalidated if you can show that the idea is obvious to practitioners of the trade, i.e. given the same problem most software engineers would arrive at the same solution.
  - randombits0 3y ago
    Same with the copyright. Purely functional code is not creative expression and cannot be copyrighted.
cyanydeez 3y ago
and now we have AI violating everything.
ric2b 3y ago
AMD has open source drivers so it's basically just NVIDIA that doesn't. Unless you already want to count intel, not sure if they count as actual products or are still in early access.
- skavi 3y ago
  Intel’s Linux drivers are also open source IIRC.
- SushiHippie 3y ago
  https://github.com/NVIDIA/open-gpu-kernel-modules https://github.com/NVIDIA/open-gpu-kernel-modules https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/nvidia-releases-open-source-gpu-kernel-modules/ https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/nvidia-releases-open-sourc...
  - ric2b 3y ago
    Those are not the drivers, it's just a small portion of code with some constants and interfaces, IIRC.
justinclift 3y ago
For Nvidia, the most likely reason they've strongly avoided Open Sourcing their drivers isn't anything like that. It's simply a function of their history. They used to have professional level graphics cards ("Nvidia Quadro") using exactly the same chips as their consumer graphics cards. The BIOS of the cards was different, enabling different features. So people wanting those features cheaply would buy the consumer graphics cards and flash the matching Quadro BIOS to them. Worked perfectly fine. Nvidia naturally wasn't happy about those "lost sales", so began a game of whack-a-mole to stop BIOS flashing from working. They did stuff like adding resistors to the boards to tell the card whether it was a Geforce or Quadro card, and when that was promptly reverse engineered they started getting creative in other ways. Meanwhile, they couldn't really Open Source their drivers because then people could see what the "Geforce vs Quadro" software checks were. That would open up software countermeasures being developed. --- In the most recent few years the professional cards and gaming cards now use different chips. So the BIOS tricks are no longer relevant. Which means Nvidia can "safely" Open Source their drivers now, and they've begun doing so.
- chii 3y ago
  Customers really, really hate segmentation of product [1], esp. if the product end up being exactly the same! I think companies should stop trying to segment customers. It's a long term loss, despite a short term gain. [1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/12/15/camels-and-rubber-duckies/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/12/15/camels-and-rubber-...
  - jjeaff 3y ago
    I don't think customers mind segmentation at all. Just, as you said, when it's a purposely crippled, identical product, they hate it.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    > It's a long term loss, despite a short term gain. While I dislike market segmentation as much as anyone, it seems like it worked out ok for Nvidia. It let them keep a (very) profitable segment of the business, which in turn financed other developments and let them become the GPU leader for a very long time. No idea how it'll play out in the end of course, but we're definite past the whole "short term" time frame.

hddqsb 3y ago

This article is not about graphics drivers. The project in question is "advanced parking and driving assistance technology".

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

> everybody is violating everybody else's patents Violating patents is one thing, as you're only violating the concept/idea, but the implementation is still up to you meaning it will still be clean room design, whereas this guy also blatantly copied the source code and design files which is a slam dunk lawsuit, hence why no company ever wants to have competitors' IP on their systems.

throwaway54_56 3y ago
> Violating patents is one thing, as you're only violating the concept/idea, but the implementation is still up to you The concept/idea is not what is patented. The patent is (or should be) for the specific execution of the idea. Competitors are free to implement their feature using methods other that what is covered by the patent, even if the end result gives the exact same functionality.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >The concept/idea is not what is patented. The patent is (or should be) for the specific execution of the idea. Have you ever seen patents? They rarely cover the implementation details, or at most they're intentionally super vague about that, most of the time it's just the general idea on how the widget would work and what it does, but not how to implement it technically.
  - throwaway54_56 3y ago
    I have seen patents. The whole point is to share a method of doing something, in return for exclusive use of that method for a period of time. That's the theory, anyway.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      Then you misunderstood or saw too few patents.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - anon373839 3y ago
      I’m sure we’ll all be glad one day that Apple shared this research breakthrough: https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/6/16614038/apple-samsung-slide-to-unlock-supreme-court-120-million https://www.theverge.com/2017/11/6/16614038/apple-samsung-sl...
      - objclxt 3y ago
        You realize the patent you’re referring to was a design patent, not a utility patent? They are very different, the former only covers look and feel, not method.
        anon373839 3y ago
        I wasn’t aware of that. But it’s even more baffling: how did they qualify for a patent on the design of a basic sliding latch?
      - criddell 3y ago
        A good example of a patent that was challenged in court and wasn’t totally invalidated is Amazon’s 1-click ordering. They patented storing customer shipping and payment details in a database so they could purchase something with a single click. It expired in 2017 but for the period it was in force, Amazon collected millions in licensing fees.
- atq2119 3y ago
  Idea is a pretty general term. I have a bunch of patents and I would describe them all as patenting an idea (for how to achieve some goal). The implementation or execution of the idea usually takes the form of some Verilog or some C++. That is covered by copyright. The patent is for the idea. Which is part of why I'm so opposed to patents, not just in software. In other fields, like medicine, patents are perhaps for discoveries, which are IMHO similarly valuable as the execution. But ideas aren't that valuable, or shouldn't be.
- dctoedt 3y ago
  > The concept/idea is not what is patented. The patent is (or should be) for the specific execution of the idea. Competitors are free to implement their feature using methods other that what is covered by the patent, even if the end result gives the exact same functionality. IP lawyer here (EDIT: not yours, of course): That's a considerable (and potentially-dangerous) oversimplification. What matters is whether what you do comes within the claims of the patent. (For a more-detailed explanation, written in pseudocode-like terms, see a 2010 post I did: https://www.oncontracts.com/how-patent-claims-work-a-variety-of-different-and-statements-all-ord-together/ https://www.oncontracts.com/how-patent-claims-work-a-variety....)
  - dmoy 3y ago
    Yea, this is a more correct explanation. Not a patent lawyer, but raised by one lol. Tangentially, it gets difficult in software because a lot of patents are .... maybe overbroad in their wording of claims. Lot of ambiguous looking landmines. This is somewhat similar to business method patents (which were curtailed a little by the SC a decade ago, but were already known to be kinda sketchy for decade+ before that). Can't patent a pure algorithm, for example.
  - david-gpu 3y ago
    At some point I was told to never ever look at a competitor's patents, because doing so would worsen the penalties if it turned out that our design infringed upon them. Can you confirm that's true? Doesn't that mean that in general it is also a really bad idea to ask an engineer questions about a particular piece of tech that they patented at a previous employer, even though the specific information is a matter of public record by virtue of being explained in the patent?
    - toast0 3y ago
      Willful infringement allows for up to triple damages. The expectation is you can't do willful infringement if you're not aware of competitor's patents, and you can't be aware of them if your policy is to never look at patent documents. Or that's the idea anyway.
- conradev 3y ago
  The specific execution of an idea is also an idea, though I feel like the granularity of patents is defined more so by where the frontier of knowledge is for a given domain than the patent office (i.e. what is hard but also valuable). But, I also haven’t spent a lot of time with patents

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ip26 3y ago

Given independent invention is apparently not a defense against infringement, that makes a lot of sense. I can’t even imagine trying to screen the codebase for that.

sokoloff 3y ago
"Infringement" is not specific enough there. Independent invention is not a defense against patent infringement, but is a defense against copyright infringement.
- chii 3y ago
  It's not easy to prove independent invention as a defense, because you have to have set it up to do so in the first place, not after the fact.
kahnclusions 3y ago
No, but a patent can be invalidated if you can show that the idea is obvious to practitioners of the trade, i.e. given the same problem most software engineers would arrive at the same solution.
- randombits0 3y ago
  Same with the copyright. Purely functional code is not creative expression and cannot be copyrighted.

cyanydeez 3y ago

and now we have AI violating everything.

ric2b 3y ago

AMD has open source drivers so it's basically just NVIDIA that doesn't. Unless you already want to count intel, not sure if they count as actual products or are still in early access.

skavi 3y ago
Intel’s Linux drivers are also open source IIRC.
SushiHippie 3y ago
https://github.com/NVIDIA/open-gpu-kernel-modules https://github.com/NVIDIA/open-gpu-kernel-modules https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/nvidia-releases-open-source-gpu-kernel-modules/ https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/nvidia-releases-open-sourc...
- ric2b 3y ago
  Those are not the drivers, it's just a small portion of code with some constants and interfaces, IIRC.

justinclift 3y ago

For Nvidia, the most likely reason they've strongly avoided Open Sourcing their drivers isn't anything like that. It's simply a function of their history. They used to have professional level graphics cards ("Nvidia Quadro") using exactly the same chips as their consumer graphics cards. The BIOS of the cards was different, enabling different features. So people wanting those features cheaply would buy the consumer graphics cards and flash the matching Quadro BIOS to them. Worked perfectly fine. Nvidia naturally wasn't happy about those "lost sales", so began a game of whack-a-mole to stop BIOS flashing from working. They did stuff like adding resistors to the boards to tell the card whether it was a Geforce or Quadro card, and when that was promptly reverse engineered they started getting creative in other ways. Meanwhile, they couldn't really Open Source their drivers because then people could see what the "Geforce vs Quadro" software checks were. That would open up software countermeasures being developed. --- In the most recent few years the professional cards and gaming cards now use different chips. So the BIOS tricks are no longer relevant. Which means Nvidia can "safely" Open Source their drivers now, and they've begun doing so.

chii 3y ago
Customers really, really hate segmentation of product [1], esp. if the product end up being exactly the same! I think companies should stop trying to segment customers. It's a long term loss, despite a short term gain. [1] https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/12/15/camels-and-rubber-duckies/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2004/12/15/camels-and-rubber-...
- jjeaff 3y ago
  I don't think customers mind segmentation at all. Just, as you said, when it's a purposely crippled, identical product, they hate it.
- justinclift 3y ago
  > It's a long term loss, despite a short term gain. While I dislike market segmentation as much as anyone, it seems like it worked out ok for Nvidia. It let them keep a (very) profitable segment of the business, which in turn financed other developments and let them become the GPU leader for a very long time. No idea how it'll play out in the end of course, but we're definite past the whole "short term" time frame.