Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[Novotny]

And... relax.

I'm glad to see us all cooling off a bit. It is a bit silly, getting so angry about something so unimportant as gaming devices, isn't it? Especially as none of us have any vested interest.

Stipe, forgive me, but I haven't quite understood your last point.

Edit whilst posting:: I just noted Madblaster's response, and as such should read Blackdog's post, even though it's bound to take me into bloody March.

Edit:: Hi Blackdog! ignore the above

[Stipe]

Sorry M8, not my native language. All off the head tracking solutions from above are supposedly using the NP code, but NP has no problem with it.
Some off those HT are supposed to be around longer than NP track ir. If that is true, how come they are using NP code if NP wasn't around when they wrote their code. Hence, NP stole from them.
If I speculate, just for fun-The creators of freetrack are laid off employees from NP. That's why the feud between them.

[Novotny]

Well - and I'm entirely guessing here - perhaps NP used obvious and well known coding routines in the basics of their code, whilst their clever stuff existed at a higher level.

A bit like building a house. You can't copyright the concepts of foundations and brickwork, however you could sue someone if they knocked off a replica of your pride and joy, 'Cool House 1.0'.

I hope that makes some sense, I'm totally guessing and trying to get a feel for the issues.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

As i said, the fact that one sees a naturalpoint value in the registry or a similarly named dll doesn't mean it's the actual naturalpoint software, it's how one makes their custom-coded dll work with older titles: just "tell" the PC that it's NP when it's really not, because NP is the only thing the game will recognize.

NP doesn't seem to want their software used in such fashion though

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

This is not equal to using NP software by any means,

Telling my PC that the dll is NP to make it work doesn't mean it is true, i'm just instructing my PC to work with an alternative instruction set.

Long story short, we'll have to ask a lawyer or a programmer if we need more details

You know full well that unless NP software is installed on the machine, Freetrack can't use NP anything to access what it wants. The clear example of this is FSX. It has its Simmconnect, yet users pan that in favour of using the FT through NP route... this has been mentioned before.

[Stipe]

The problem is that I still don't know what NP have copyrights for? Track ir?
Then freetrack would violate that if it was called track ir-xxx.
What else could they have copyright for? math? IR leds?
W-R
Not trying too nitpick, but the difference between "they don't like seeing that someone is using it that way" and "they are not allowed to do that" is huge.

[Novotny]

Well, they could protect any aspect of their code - which would include maths. They could also protect how their code interfaces with their hardware - that seems quite reasonable to me.

I just don't understand why people think NP are evil. No one has produced any argument to sway me, and again, I think it's down to cost, at the end of the day. I wish it was cheaper too.

Edit:: Masterblaster, I just noted your final sentence. With respect, I think you are misunderstanding the legality of the points being argued.

[Stipe]

Please don't think I'm trolling or that I want to fight. I just want to learn and understand.
"They can defend any part of their code". Which part? What if they are trying to protect a piece of code that is essential for any head tracking software to work and that is generic or the basis of any code?
That's why i would like to see copyright proof of what they feel is theirs. At the end of the day, almost everyone can afford track ir. But for the quality not becouse it's the only option. I bought simped rudder pedals, again, becouse it's a quality product that will last me for years.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by Stipe

At the end of the day, almost everyone can afford track ir. But for the quality not becouse it's the only option.

That's what seems to be getting to the real crux of the problem and that is the quality of the TIR system. True, that some people may have a hard time of affording it, but they seem to have their computers and their monitors and other hardwares, etc, as well as their beers and iphones.

[MadBlaster]

Originally Posted by Novotny

Well, they could protect any aspect of their code - which would include maths. They could also protect how their code interfaces with their hardware - that seems quite reasonable to me.

I just don't understand why people think NP are evil. No one has produced any argument to sway me, and again, I think it's down to cost, at the end of the day. I wish it was cheaper too.

Edit:: Masterblaster, I just noted your final sentence. With respect, I think you are misunderstanding the legality of the points being argued.

The only point with that last sentance is to clarify that legal rights protection on software is called a copyright and legal right protection on hardware is called a patent. Not meant as commentary on the arguement. I just see the words being thrown around in the discussion interchangeably and they are really not interchangeable. But if I'm missing something, please point it out.

[Novotny]

I have to sign off. You may have noted that I'm from Belfast, and I have almost finished an entire bottle of Scotch. Yes, I am that drunk, however I'm not so stupid that I can't spell.

I've enjoyed our discussions, and will of course be back for more tomorrow. Or later this day. Depends on how you look at it.

Au Revoir!, and for god's sake, look for the good, not the bad, you silly bastards.