Doesn't Creative Labs have a patent on stencil shadows? I just heard about it, wondering if its true or not.
Bah, just use it. If Creative takes you to court I will eat my hat. (Not that that will help you in any way)
There are 'prior art' but apparently Creative managed to snatch the patent anyway. They bullied id into using EAX in Doom 3 by beating them over the head with this patent.
I first leanred about using the stencil buffer to do shadows from a Siggraph paper. I coudl be wrong but I don't think it was a Creative Labs paper.
The US patent office does no prior art checking before issuing patents. And remember, you exposure is only as big as what you have to lose 
jME is not sold, so technically it is OK to implement it. Patents only apply to people who make money with it. }:-@
Patent infringment can also apply to any, even open-source, project that would potentially reduce the money made by the patent holder. Thus, M$ having problems w/ Linux. M$'s technology being used to increase the market share of linux => M$ loosing money.
guurk said:
Patent infringment can also apply to any, even open-source, project that would potentially reduce the money made by the patent holder. Thus, M$ having problems w/ Linux. M$'s technology being used to increase the market share of linux => M$ loosing money.
Yes, I guess you are right, even though I just think patents are st00pid :x, care should be taken. :(
Stencil shadows / zpass / zfail (Carmack's reverse) are all extremely standard techniques found in almost every graphics book out there. I have a hard time seeing any problem there.