No Man's Sky sued over procedural generation algorithm patent | Hacker News Reader

No Man's Sky sued over procedural generation algorithm patent

pcgamer.com

26 pointschriswwweb33 comments

I don't personally feel like something like this should be patentable, but Gielis is definitely following both the rule and spirit of the patent law. I hope Hello Games and Genicap can come to some sort of agreement.

Edit: As another comment notes, the patent might have expired in 2006 due to fee non-payment, in which case Gielis doesn't have much of a standing.

Edit 2: Nevermind, Gielis does seem to hold a valid patent: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP00929732

It describes a circle with parameterized wobbles? That is a pure mathematics problem, not in the realm of patents at all. Why are you certain they're acting validly?

It seems misleading to even call it an algorithm.

It infringes on my x^2 + y^2 = 1 patent, as does the letter 'o'.

I deal routinely with use patents in the medical field. There's a chemical that's been in use for 30+ years to stabilize polymers from ionizing radiation. It's used in practically all gallon milk jugs to protect them from UV degradation. A company has a bright idea in 2006 that this chemical would also stabilize medical device plastics during sterilization (usually gamma radiation), and get a use patent on this stabilizer for use in the medical industry. 30+ year old technology, used in several fields, but requires licensing to use it in medical devices. And this is a world patent.

I'm guessing the patent would be a use patent. The patent is on a specific use of the math (although it doesn't sound all that specific from the claims that I've seen).

Well, if it's an algorithm as the article alleges - compression is an algorithm and so are video codecs. They can be patented. Why should this be treated differently?

Why should video codecs be patentable? I'm well aware they are currently but it seems ludicrous that you can patent the performance of a sequence of mathematical operations.

Video codec patents are an odd example to use, as they are currently doing a great job of stifling the state of the art, rather than promoting it.

I'm not up to date on the complexities of patent vs copyright, but I'll assume you're against both?

It just seems to me if you can write software you should be able to own it. If you can own it then you get to say where and how it is used and what compensation you want.

Isn't an algorithm or a codec a lot like saying a program? Why shouldn't people be able to own the fruit of their labors?

People don't get to own the math they invent, or the mental processes they invent. I think the same should apply to algorithms in general. You don't get to control people's thoughts, and if someone is allowed to think something, they should be allowed to have a computer assist them in thinking it.

Copyright is fine, if we ignore the recent length extensions. If you write software, you get to say who uses that software. But you don't get to say who uses similar software.

Consider also how this applies to AI. It's very possible that in our lifetimes (I'm assuming you'll live for the next 40 years) we'll see strong AI, possibly capable of inventing novel things by itself or with human collaboration. Who owns the patents which will inevitably result from this? What if the AI has an opinion on the matter? Should the AI own the patents? Is someone allowed to own the AI?

I don't disagree with anything you've said in that post. I just disagree that it should apply to someone else's copy.

If you want some good arguments against software patents like this one, check out these sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Why_abolish_software_patents http://endsoftpatents.org/

Couldn't agree more, for f@&$! sake people, we're trying to evolve, form cross-community, intercontinental collaboration and move forward together as a species but a messed up financial model (particularly in the USA) is holding society back. We almost all know it, it's easy to say but hard to change. I think that the key is to keep the conversation current, transparent and relevant to the general public and that is the only way blockers like patents will ever go away.

Are you saying that if I come up with a good idea, I don't have a right to protect that idea?

The purpose of copyright and patent laws is to give the greatest benefit to society (in the American constitution, the phrasing is "to promote the useful arts and sciences"). The granting of temporary monopolies to registrants is a common tactic used to achieve that end, but not the only possible one, and one that admits of many variations (terms, extensions, and limitations vary across jurisdictions and over time).

Maybe some people think that the exact laws we have right now are the best possible at serving the underlying purpose of the long-term enrichment of the public domain, but many seem to think that improvements could be made.

Let's say you come up with a great idea, a universal cure for cancer, but it requires growing human stem cells in a lab and you're against that for religious reasons, so you patent it and make sure nobody ever uses it. There are a few issues here. First, you definitely didn't come up with that idea from nothing. You "stood on the shoulders of giants" and profited from thousands of years of scientific development. You almost certainly collaborated with lots of other people who might not have shared your personal values and contributed just as much or more than you did to its development. You happened to be the person who connected the final piece. Just how much control should that give you over the use of the idea? Some people would say it's hard to justify your absolute control over the use of that idea.

If you are the one responsible for pulling an idea together, even if you stood on the shoulders of giants, you should be able to profit from what you've done.

With that said, something like the situation you described with the cure for cancer seems like a prime target for eminent domain. The government can, in theory, force you to sell them your patent for a reasonable amount, if it's in the public interest.

The problem with this situation is that not everybody shares this ideology, just like not everybody would share the ideology of the person against using stem cells. You're saying that when a perosn synthesizes information in such a way that something sufficiently novel comes from it, that person should have control over the use of that idea and profit financially from it. That's a cultural concept rooted primarily in English law derived from a feudal system that was reformed by aristocrats who wanted more control from the monarchy. It took a lot of very specific historical events to develop that attitude toward property, let alone intellectual property. It's a claim that's impossible to justify except on inherited cultural values, and those values are constantly changing and unevenly supported in an increasingly global economy.

When the British created a worldwide empire, they imposed their ideas on their colonies, but eventually the colonies got strong enough that they developed their own values and asserted independence against colonialism. Now we have the same kind of situation happening with a certain segment of the world, mostly from Europe and its former colonies, attempting to impose a kind of intellectual colonialism over the world by controlling the use of information and using the rest of the world as a resource and manufactirng base. The same forces that took down colonialism are at work fighting against intellectual property, except it's much easier to fight intellectual property than colonial rule.

The ideology, and British colonialism is a red herring.

What I am arguing is that if I come up with a novel idea, I have created something. If you've created something, someone should have a good reason to take it from you.

But those ideas are a matter of ideology, not logic or reason. Some cultures are individualistic and believe in personal property, others are collectivist and value social contribution, others are all over the spectrum. Nobody can say they have the right value on ownership because there is no correct answer, only personal and cultural values. You absolutely should stick to your convictions and believe in them, just don't expect everyone else to agree. Better to be open to the spectrum of opinions in my opinion.

So you're saying that a person should not be able to profit off their original idea because they don't actually have an original idea? Because truly original ideas don't actually exist, they are merely extensions of the work of people that came before me?

You realize by that logic that no one is truly responsible for anything as an individual, that nothing they do can possibly create new value because they are simply doing what they next guy was going to do any way?

Sorry, ewzimm, but I definitely do not agree with your ideology here. I do not agree with you that a person is only worth the physical labor they are capable of providing. Can I ask what you think societies and governments should do with their elderly and disabled? I'm kind of scared of what your answer is going to be......

Yup, because somebody else might have even the same idea before.

Also, idea's are generally speaking very cheap.

In a world where progress is made in "smallish" increments it doesn't make any sense to allow exclusive rights to the first one to apply for a patent.

Furthermore, other industries that mainly idea-driven like fashion industry are less about protection, but more about advancing faster.

I totally aggree, patents on an algorithm are really not a good idea

Yeah the patent is still registered in some european countries but not all of them, in some countries it has expiered, don't know what this means from a juridical point of view though

Here is the full patent description: http://www.google.com/patents/EP1177529A1?cl=un

It looks like this is the patent, and that it was withdrawn because they stopped paying the fees:

https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP05100648&lng=e...

Assuming this is the same patent, either Gielis is so irresponsible and disorganized he didn't realize his patent expired, or he's just trying to rustle up some bad press to extort money out of them.

Following the link from the article gives this: https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP00929732

> Company claims No Man's Sky uses its patented equation without permission

is pretty damn different from

> No Man's Sky sued over procedural generation algorithm patent

The paper with the "Superformula" : http://www.amjbot.org/content/90/3/333.full

> creator Sean Murray acknowledged in a 2015 New Yorker interview that he had struggled with elements of procedural planetary generation, until he discovered an equation published in 2003 by Belgian plant geneticist Johan Gielis that he called “Superformula.”

I sense a settlement (or partnership) in the near future

So the fact he didn't even reinvent it but used the paper makes this an entirely different case to me. Hm.

UPDATE: Hello Games has finally posted a response to the patent infringement claims, this is what they tweeted:

"No Man's Sky doesn't actually use this "superformula" thing or infringe a patent. This is a non-story... everybody chill (シ_ _)シ"

Tweet is here: https://twitter.com/NoMansSky/status/756889227095318528

The superforumula is public knowledge and these guys are clowns. Dumb patent trolls... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superformula

Your linked wikipedia page states that it's patented. Yes, it's silly one can do that but it gives some legal credibility to the case.

Why as this formular so cool? Cooking it the shapes on the wikipedia shapes, once unraveled from the circular shape the curves don't look too interesting to me. But these might be simple examples...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com