Head Tracking with Cliffs of Dover

[SEE]

There is no point to the argument regards NP V FT and copyright. The guys at FT must have looked at NP's algorithm and came up with something identical or very close and included that as an alternative to their own FT code. To use FT with Il1946 you have to use their version of the NP algorithm (which is open source and anyone can dowload it to take a peek at it). Unfortunately, NP also looked at existing Tracking codes used in other applications and adapted it to their Headtracking product. In that respect it would have been impossible to patent the code as it was a 'development' not an 'invention'. You can write algorithims in many different ways to perform the same output data. NP could only protect their registered trademark and products that they themselves designed - hence the removal of references to the use of existing NP hardware in FT's literature. It's down to interpretation and NP consider that 'headtracking' is their intellectual property as a gaming product accessory and naturally want to protect it in other ways. The solution was simple, develop an encryption code and protect it legally. The real and only sensible argument is wether CoD should use the old code or include FT's code in addition to NP's.

[norulz]

Originally Posted by SEE

There is no point to the argument regards NP V FT and copyright. The guys at FT must have looked at NP's algorithm and came up with something identical or very close and included that as an alternative to their own FT code. To use FT with Il1946 you have to use their version of the NP algorithm (which is open source and anyone can dowload it to take a peek at it). Unfortunately, NP also looked at existing Tracking codes used in other applications and adapted it to their Headtracking product. In that respect it would have been impossible to patent the code as it was a 'development' not an 'invention'. You can write algorithims in many different ways to perform the same output data. NP could only protect their registered trademark and products that they themselves designed - hence the removal of references to the use of existing NP hardware in FT's literature. It's down to interpretation and NP consider that 'headtracking' is their intellectual property as a gaming product accessory and naturally want to protect it in other ways. The solution was simple, develop an encryption code and protect it legally. The real and only sensible argument is wether CoD should use the old code or include FT's code in addition to NP's.

Exactly!

I am very interested on what they will do when face-api will takeoff... AFAIK another NP is trying to get money on that thing and another free version of it will emerge... and again... they will try to encrypt it etc etc... But NP... will be out of business by then.

[Wolf_Rider]

mmmm, no not "exactly"

FT stripped away the encryption, (encryption which was created by NP to protect what was their work, their software) there wasn't any FT developing of their own algorithms (at that time).

Ft code included as well as and seperate to NP code is fine by me

[Royraiden]

Wolf Rider,do I have to ask you personally to please dont go on with the silly discussion?

[Wolf_Rider]

excuse me? now why would you be asking that?

[norulz]

lol...

How do you know what FT team did? It seems you had read all the source code from FT and NP for that matter... so where you work at?


How about we let this just drop dead and maybe a dev of CoD will make a statement about the issue the thread is about?


I want to know if I could use face api and facetracknoir with ppJoy in CoD. I don't give a damn about that NP silly interface... and their hat.

[Wolf_Rider]

Originally Posted by norulz

How do you know what FT team did? It seems you had read all the source code from FT and NP for that matter... so where you work at?

How? Its a thing called history... so roll your eyes at that perhaps