1C's stance on head-tracking devices for BoB?

[AndyJWest]

...the very simple operation of allowing the tying of view angle to joystick axes by developers.

Yup. The same question I asked earlier. The same question that was 'answered' by a reference to an earlier posting that confused software, hardware, copyright, R&D, and who knows what else.

Let me make my position perfectly clear. If specific copyright infringements have occured, they should be dealt with appropriately. Vague assertions are not relevent to the question, however. Neither is an assumption that 'we did it first, so we have a monopoly', particularly in a case like this where it is self-evidently untrue (military aircraft have had position-senseing equipment for helmets for at least 30 years). I've seen no evidence that TrackIR is 'original' in any sense other than in creating a particular interface, Unless this is incorrect, there is no reason whatsoever why they should be able to claim any legal protection from others.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

I've seen no evidence that TrackIR is 'original' in any sense other than in creating a particular interface,

which is what NP are being stomped for by trying to protect it.

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

Well, I'm bored now, I was arguing this because it was interesting, but if you're so evasive that you can't answer simple questions I'm going to be bored again. I haven't intimidated you as you posted above (unless you meant to write intimations), you won't answer simple questions, don't recognise basic logic, have some kind of unnatural attachment to NaturalPoint and TrackIR. It was interesting for a while.

oh, I'm sorry, did you require the answers in a particular format? 'cause to me it definitely looks like there is a clear answer to each of your three questions

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

oh, I'm sorry, did you require the answers in a particular format? 'cause to me it definitely looks like there is a clear answer to each of your three questions

Nice one champ, why don't you take a look at the time I responded to your post, and the last time you edited your post?

[Wolf_Rider]

which post, is that?

[TheGrunch]

There is an 18 minute interval between when you posted #108 and when you last edited it to add the whole second section. If you're going to respond to people who posted in between that time, you have to take into account when you made your edits. I posted #109 14 minutes before your last edit of #108. Now can we get back to the discussion?

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

There is an 18 minute interval between when you posted #108 and when you last edited it to add the whole second section. If you're going to respond to people who posted in between that time, you have to take into account when you made your edits. I posted #109 14 minutes before your last edit of #108. Now can we get back to the discussion?

is that all you have left grunch? talk about hardpressed


lets see what we've got so far....

allegations without proof
an agreeance that developers/ publishers don't need to cater to hackers
an agreeance that there should be some sort of interface that software writers can use for headtracking, without hacking into someone else's
an admonishment of one company for wanting and endeavouring to protect its software access, without affecting any other
a freesource team, who won't approach developers for inclusion in the product but would rather hack and support hacking


interesting

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider

is that all you have left grunch? talk about hardpressed

No, I've asked you a question. You answered a post I made between edits of one of your earlier posts, for some reason. Would you care to answer my question as to whether you can provide a link that proves your allegations about the Freetrack developers? All this evasion you're trying is very boring.

[AndyJWest]

Quote... Ok, don't bother this is getting convoluted enough as it is.

no wonder you don't understand anyone, when you don't seem to be to follow your own train of thought.....

To explain it as simply as possible: NP invented a new interface for their hardware. This was unnecessary, as the existing interface was perfectly capable of handling the inputs. They have since tried to claim that they 'invented' the interface for 6DOF, rather than implementing (badly) a particular instance of such an interface. They are probably entitled to stop other hardware manufactures from using their interface, IF they accept that it isn't original, protected by any particular copyright etc beyond being an instance of an implementation of a particular solution to a generic problem. I've little doubt that a better interface could be arrived at with a little consultation between interested parties, though why they'd need to do more than state that the existing MS joystick interface was suitable for 6DOF input is beyond me.

It is noticeable that NP seem to wish to remain ambiguous as to what exactly they are claiming 'intellectual property rights' on. If it is the general principle of 6DOF input, they clearly aren't the first, and if it is their interface, it is open to others to provide alternatives.

[AndyJWest]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Trying to protect what? An unoriginal interface. They invented nothing significant. All they did was create a way for their hardware to interact with other people's software. they are entitled to do this. So is anyone else. What about this is so difficult to grasp?

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

I've seen no evidence that TrackIR is 'original' in any sense other than in creating a particular interface,

Originally Posted by AndyJWest

Trying to protect what? An unoriginal interface. They invented nothing significant. All they did was create a way for their hardware to interact with other people's software. they are entitled to do this. So is anyone else. What about this is so difficult to grasp?

its nothing difficult to grasp at all if you maintain your original "creating an particular interface" line of your first quote, which you seem to have changed to 'unoriginal interface' in your second quote.

no wonder you don't understand anyone, when you don't seem to be able to follow your own train of thought.....