[OT] on a purely technical matter, T...
-
Schol-R-LEA
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 161
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: The People's Republic of Berkeley
- Contact:
As I was paging through some web pages looking for info on software patents, I ran across (not for the first time) the "<a href="http://burnallgifs.org/">Burn All GIFs"</a> page, a (somewhat hysterical) 'political' site encouraging users to avoid using the GIF file format, which uses a patented compression technique and supposedly might lead even end users to get sued for royalties under certain circumstances (though so far no one has been, and since the patent has only three years left before it expires, it is unlikely any will be). <P>I noticed that this mentioned a move to get webcomics that use GIFs to switch to PNGs. Specifically, it linked to a page called <a href="http://www.burstnet.com/cgi-bin/ads/ba8 ... N-CODE">An Open Letter to Web Comics Artists"</a> on the "Help Desk"/"UberSoft" site. <P>I was wondering what your opinion in this was. Is this something that really matters to web artists, or just a lot of BS? Are the patent issues serious enough, and/or the technical ones important enough, to justify changing? Even though I'm a supporter of the PNG format myself, this seems like a tempest in a teapot, especially since it's now clear that PNG may not be patent-free as earlier thought (Apple now says that a related format, SVG, infringes on one of their patents for a technique that PNG also uses; the developers' dispute this, and point to a preexisting publication to claim that the assertion, if not Apple's patent, is invalid - hold on, this is where I came in...). What do you think?<p>[This message has been edited by Schol-R-LEA (edited 12-16-2001).]
-
Schol-R-LEA
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 161
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: The People's Republic of Berkeley
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wish:
<B>If I'm not mistaken (and I very well may be) the GIF format patent primarily applies to programs which enable users to save images in the GIF format, not the artwork or images itself. I recall seeing something in a readme or three about that issue.<P>-Wish
Opinionated and Uneducated.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So far, that's been the case. However, Unisys supposedly has claimed that artists who create GIFs with unlisensed software would then be liable for royalties themselves - a tactic that is unlikely to hold up in court, yet it is the whole arguememt behind the "Burn all GIFs" group.<P><i>sigh</i> This is the kind of thing that I was concerned about, in part. As I said, I think that the PNG fromat really is an improvement, and I want to see it used more widely... but I wonder if the politicizing of the matter is hurting it more than helping. The whole point with PNG was that it would be an end run against the political issue, by simply offering a solution that didn't have ant strings attached. But tying it to the 'No Patents' cause, it has turned the whole idea on its head, from avoidance of conflict to direct confrontation. Associating the PNG format with the radical fringe ony hurts its acceptability.<P>As for what T said, the fact that support is still such an issue tells me all I really need to know. Politics be damned; if it doesn't do the job then it isn't a suitable replacement. Too bad.<P>My own view on the patent issue is that patents themselves are a Good Thing, even software patents; however, the patent office, as far as I can tell, has essentially given up trying to determine the validity of patents are are simply granting them on request. I've heard that this is not a problem peculiar to software patents - although the lack of experts in software has made the issue particularly critical there - but has to do with the semi-privatization of the patent system. The USPTO, I've read, is now funded solely through application fees, which has forced them to maximize the number of patents they process at the expense of the review procedure.<P>In the specific case of software, the fact that a lot of the standard, commonly used techniques are spread as unpublished lore, makes it hard for even a careful search to uncover prior use. Given rather limited research that is being done, and the pressure to increase the number of patents issued, determining the validity of a patent in the time given is nearly impossible.<P>I won't address the issue of whether ideas (as opposed to concrete devices and processes) should or should not be patented; the border between them has always been quite blurry, and there are enough ways around the objection (e.g., by building a hardware implementation of a given algorithm) as to make it a moot issue anyway. <P>However, IMAO, patents of any kind should be relatively <i>rare</i> things, given only for genuinely unique and non-obvious creations. Even before the change in funding, patents were being issued at far too fast a rate, and with far too little review. The system should be changed so that, rather than encouraging the issuance of new patents, should discourage it - though not, hopefully, to the point of failing to protect real innovation. It's a difficult balance to strike, and right now, epspecially where software patents are concerned, it has swung too far in one direction. When the correction comes, it will probably be too conservative for a time, which is no better. Still, unless it collapses entirely, the system <i>will</i> correct itself eventually. <P>------------------
Schol-R-LEA;2 ELF JAM LCF BiWM MGT GS
First Speaker, Last Eristic Church of Finagle and Holy Bisexuality
The greatest strength of the Conspiracy is that it doesn't exist.
The greatest weakness of the Conspiracy is that it does.
<B>If I'm not mistaken (and I very well may be) the GIF format patent primarily applies to programs which enable users to save images in the GIF format, not the artwork or images itself. I recall seeing something in a readme or three about that issue.<P>-Wish
Opinionated and Uneducated.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>So far, that's been the case. However, Unisys supposedly has claimed that artists who create GIFs with unlisensed software would then be liable for royalties themselves - a tactic that is unlikely to hold up in court, yet it is the whole arguememt behind the "Burn all GIFs" group.<P><i>sigh</i> This is the kind of thing that I was concerned about, in part. As I said, I think that the PNG fromat really is an improvement, and I want to see it used more widely... but I wonder if the politicizing of the matter is hurting it more than helping. The whole point with PNG was that it would be an end run against the political issue, by simply offering a solution that didn't have ant strings attached. But tying it to the 'No Patents' cause, it has turned the whole idea on its head, from avoidance of conflict to direct confrontation. Associating the PNG format with the radical fringe ony hurts its acceptability.<P>As for what T said, the fact that support is still such an issue tells me all I really need to know. Politics be damned; if it doesn't do the job then it isn't a suitable replacement. Too bad.<P>My own view on the patent issue is that patents themselves are a Good Thing, even software patents; however, the patent office, as far as I can tell, has essentially given up trying to determine the validity of patents are are simply granting them on request. I've heard that this is not a problem peculiar to software patents - although the lack of experts in software has made the issue particularly critical there - but has to do with the semi-privatization of the patent system. The USPTO, I've read, is now funded solely through application fees, which has forced them to maximize the number of patents they process at the expense of the review procedure.<P>In the specific case of software, the fact that a lot of the standard, commonly used techniques are spread as unpublished lore, makes it hard for even a careful search to uncover prior use. Given rather limited research that is being done, and the pressure to increase the number of patents issued, determining the validity of a patent in the time given is nearly impossible.<P>I won't address the issue of whether ideas (as opposed to concrete devices and processes) should or should not be patented; the border between them has always been quite blurry, and there are enough ways around the objection (e.g., by building a hardware implementation of a given algorithm) as to make it a moot issue anyway. <P>However, IMAO, patents of any kind should be relatively <i>rare</i> things, given only for genuinely unique and non-obvious creations. Even before the change in funding, patents were being issued at far too fast a rate, and with far too little review. The system should be changed so that, rather than encouraging the issuance of new patents, should discourage it - though not, hopefully, to the point of failing to protect real innovation. It's a difficult balance to strike, and right now, epspecially where software patents are concerned, it has swung too far in one direction. When the correction comes, it will probably be too conservative for a time, which is no better. Still, unless it collapses entirely, the system <i>will</i> correct itself eventually. <P>------------------
Schol-R-LEA;2 ELF JAM LCF BiWM MGT GS
First Speaker, Last Eristic Church of Finagle and Holy Bisexuality
The greatest strength of the Conspiracy is that it doesn't exist.
The greatest weakness of the Conspiracy is that it does.
-
T Campbell
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 946
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Virginia Beach, VA, USA
- Contact:
COOL CAT STUDIO went to PNG format briefly this summer, and got so many complaints from users with older, PNG-blind browsers that it had changed back within a month.<P>This is one time when I DON'T want to be cutting-edge. Lord knows, there have been far too many Web entertainment properties to pay dearly for being too far ahead of their time. Look at Icebox.com, for starters.<P>If the readership of other comics proves PNGs a worthwhile investment, we'll make the jump.<P>As for the "destroy all patents, down with GIFs" argument, there are two problems with it:<P>1) Patents are the primary means by which inventors get compensated for their inventions (and if you don't think Alexander Graham Bell deserved to make a buck or two for the telephone...)<P>2) PNG is a little-used format and it's possible, though unlikely, that its patent might be enforced. GIFs, on the other hand, are used by damnnearEVERYbody, making any patents on them about as enforcable as a retroactive copyright on the letter "e."<P>Geez, I'm sounding more know-it-all all the time...
-
All-Purpose Guru
- Newbie
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wish:
<B>If I'm not mistaken (and I very well may be) the GIF format patent primarily applies to programs which enable users to save images in the GIF format, not the artwork or images itself. I recall seeing something in a readme or three about that issue.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What you're seeing is a combination of the patentor's rights and feasibility.<P>In theory, Unisys could say that anything that uses the algorithm (which is what is patented) must be licensed. In practice, with Netscape and IE being given away, that's not practical. So, Unisys decided that <B>decompression</B> of GIFs can be done freely-- they grant <B>anyone</B> a free license to decompress GIFs. In order to protect their rights, they then decided that any software that <B>creates</B> GIF images must be granted a license-- and there's a whole pile of different licensing agreements designed to accomodate all kinds of companies.<P>It hasn't been enough of an issue to really worry about, anyway, or png and other formats would have become widespread. Unisys knows this, and hasn't pushed it too much.<P><P>------------------
<B>If I'm not mistaken (and I very well may be) the GIF format patent primarily applies to programs which enable users to save images in the GIF format, not the artwork or images itself. I recall seeing something in a readme or three about that issue.</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>What you're seeing is a combination of the patentor's rights and feasibility.<P>In theory, Unisys could say that anything that uses the algorithm (which is what is patented) must be licensed. In practice, with Netscape and IE being given away, that's not practical. So, Unisys decided that <B>decompression</B> of GIFs can be done freely-- they grant <B>anyone</B> a free license to decompress GIFs. In order to protect their rights, they then decided that any software that <B>creates</B> GIF images must be granted a license-- and there's a whole pile of different licensing agreements designed to accomodate all kinds of companies.<P>It hasn't been enough of an issue to really worry about, anyway, or png and other formats would have become widespread. Unisys knows this, and hasn't pushed it too much.<P><P>------------------