> Unisys' claims are fairly extensive, but many in the field believe that their
> patent only applies to creation, not to using. Thus, viewing GIF might be fine
> even though you need a license from them to create them.

That was always my understanding, too. However, if you read their web
site
statement carefully, it gives rise to doubt. Here's an excerpt:

  "In all cases, a written license agreement or statement signed by
  an authorized Unisys representative is required from Unisys for
  all use, sale or distribution of any software (including so-called
 "freeware") and/or hardware providing LZW conversion capability
 (for example, downloaded software used for creating/displaying GIF
images)."

This would seem to indicate that Unisys expects one to get a license to
use any piece of software that displays GIFs. That would include every
Netscape and Internet Explorer user as well as the guy who buys and
uses Adobe Photoshop and the like. How about the GIMP project? Do they
have a license from Unisys? How about the users of GIMP? Do they need
one?

One would think that the developer of a piece of software would be
responsible for getting the license, and that the user wouldn't be
required to do so. However, this is also addressed by the Unisys
statement:

  "Microsoft Corporation obtained a license under the above Unisys LZW
  patents in September, 1996. Microsoft's license does NOT extend to
  software developers or third parties who use Microsoft toolkit,
language,
  development or operating system products to provide GIF read/write
and/or
  any other LZW capabilities in their own products (e.g., by way of DLLs
and
  APIs). The complete statement by Microsoft can be found at Microsoft's
  developer-oriented Web site at
http://www.microsoft.com/DEVONLY/Unisys.htm.
  Software developers and third parties who wish to include Microsoft
toolkit,
  language, development or operating system products in their own
products for
  providing GIF or any other LZW capability should contact Unisys for a
  license as instructed below. "

The way this reads, even though Microsoft got a license to implement
DLLs
that provide LZW services, the developer who uses Microsoft's pre-built
DLLs in their projects are *not* covered.

It seems to me that this whole thing is an attempt on the part of some
lawyers
at Unisys to cash in on the Web, to the detriment of its users. Reminds
me of
the guy who went to the US Trademark office and registered himself a
trademark
on the term "Linux". He then went to everyone who was using the term
(book
publishers, software retailers, outfits like Red Hat and Debian, and so
forth) and tried to extort license fees from them for the use of his
"proprietary trademark". He was unjustified, of course, and finally
(under pressure from lawyers and several others) relinquished
his rights to the term "Linux".

Post a reply to this message