 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken <tyl### [at] pacbell net> wrote:
: If your country honors international patent agreements, like many civilized
: countries do, there is a good chance that patents originated here will apply
: in your country too. If you want links to resources of information on patent
: and copyright law let me know and I will fill your email box with them :)
So if someone in some tiny island in the middle of nowhere makes an
international patent for hot water, that means that I can't use hot water
without paying many dollar$ to that person?
Don't think so.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Ken wrote:
> If your country honors international patent agreements, like many civilized
> countries do, there is a good chance that patents originated here will apply
> in your country too. If you want links to resources of information on patent
> and copyright law let me know and I will fill your email box with them :)
In my opinion, civilized countries should not grant software patents,
and I personally wouldn't fault civilized countries for failing to
recognize them. Frankly, I'm more worried about patenting of genes.
One of these days, some moron in the patent office is going to approve a
patent for RNA polymerase, and then we'll all be out of luck. The USPTO
is completely broken, and if they never issued another patent, the world
would be a better place for it.
-Mark Gordon
(insert necessary disclaimers: I don't speak for the POV-Team, and I
certainly don't speak for my employer)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jerome M. BERGER <jbe### [at] enstfr> wrote:
: They didn't patent something that was previously published, they just
: waited until it was firmly established before trying to enforce their
: patent
Of course it was published.
Those two statements are contradictory. How could people use it if it wasn't
published?
If I invent a new and revolutionary algorithm for raytracing 10 times
faster than any current method and write an article here explaining it,
I couldn't patent it here in Finland for two reasons:
1) Algorithms can't be patented, only industrially profitable inventions
(mostly real devices) can be patented.
2) Even if they could, I couldn't patent this because I published it
in a public forum (even if I deleted it an hour after sending it).
There is a case here in Finland where a patent was denied because the
applicant had put the specifications of his invention for 1 day in the WWW.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nieminen Juha wrote:
>
> Jerome M. BERGER <jbe### [at] enstfr> wrote:
> : They didn't patent something that was previously published, they just
> : waited until it was firmly established before trying to enforce their
> : patent
>
> Of course it was published.
> Those two statements are contradictory. How could people use it if it wasn't
> published?
>
I may be wrong, but I believe the chronology is as follows:
1. the LZ algorythm was published
2. Unisys developped some changes to this algorithm
3. Unisys patented those changes
4. Unisys published those changees (*after* having patented them) under
the name LZW
5. the LZW method became very succesful (espescially in gif) and Unisys
let it develop
6. now Unisys want to enforce their patent
Point 5 is the reason why I think such a patent becomes unenforceable
in France (besides the problem with patenting an algorithm the exact
status of which I don't know)
> If I invent a new and revolutionary algorithm for raytracing 10 times
> faster than any current method and write an article here explaining it,
> I couldn't patent it here in Finland for two reasons:
> 1) Algorithms can't be patented, only industrially profitable inventions
> (mostly real devices) can be patented.
That's a good thing IMO, but I don't know how international la works in
that respect...
> 2) Even if they could, I couldn't patent this because I published it
> in a public forum (even if I deleted it an hour after sending it).
Yes but Unisys patented it *before* publishing it...
>
> There is a case here in Finland where a patent was denied because the
> applicant had put the specifications of his invention for 1 day in the WWW.
>
That's stupid I think, but it's better than being able to patent
anything and everything as is the case in some countries :)
Jerome
--
*******************************
* they'll tell you what can't * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* be done and why... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
* Then do it. *
*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jerome M. BERGER" wrote:
> I may be wrong, but I believe the chronology is as follows:
> 1. the LZ algorythm was published
In point of fact, several LZ algorithms were published, but yes.
> 2. Unisys developped some changes to this algorithm
One guy at a company that is now part of Unisys made some improvements.
> 3. Unisys patented those changes
His employer applied for patents, with an emphasis on use in hardware.
> 4. Unisys published those changees (*after* having patented them) under
> the name LZW
I'm not entirely sure that 3 came before 4. Also, in terms of print
publications, it may be (I'm speculating here) that it was submitted to
some journal for review at the same time that the patent paperwork was
submitted, making the two effectively simultaneous. I don't think the
publication made mention of any patent application.
> 5. the LZW method became very succesful (espescially in gif) and Unisys
> let it develop
CompuServe invented GIF, and they weren't aware of the patent on LZW at
the time. GIF was out and well known for some time before Unisys spoke
up. Note that TIFF also uses LZW; I'm not sure of the chronology there.
> 6. now Unisys want to enforce their patent
>
> Point 5 is the reason why I think such a patent becomes unenforceable
> in France (besides the problem with patenting an algorithm the exact
> status of which I don't know)
It's similar to the legal notion of need to defend trademarks, then?
> > If I invent a new and revolutionary algorithm for raytracing 10 times
> > faster than any current method and write an article here explaining it,
> > I couldn't patent it here in Finland for two reasons:
> > 1) Algorithms can't be patented, only industrially profitable inventions
> > (mostly real devices) can be patented.
The argument may be that software that implements (reads or writes) LWZ
compression is a software simulation of the hardware it was originally
designed for. Whether that holds water in France, I have no idea.
> That's a good thing IMO, but I don't know how international la works in
> that respect...
It probably depends on what treaties the nation in question has signed.
IANAL, and I haven't seen the treaties.
> > 2) Even if they could, I couldn't patent this because I published it
> > in a public forum (even if I deleted it an hour after sending it).
> Yes but Unisys patented it *before* publishing it...
IMHO, if they wanted patent protection on the algorithm, they should
have noted at least the appication in the original publication. I don't
know that they did that.
> >
> > There is a case here in Finland where a patent was denied because the
> > applicant had put the specifications of his invention for 1 day in the WWW.
> >
> That's stupid I think, but it's better than being able to patent
> anything and everything as is the case in some countries :)
Maybe it will all end if some enlightened individual patents
patenting...
-Mark Gordon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mark Gordon wrote:
>
> "Jerome M. BERGER" wrote:
>
> > I may be wrong, but I believe the chronology is as follows:
> > 1. the LZ algorythm was published
>
> In point of fact, several LZ algorithms were published, but yes.
>
Well, there was the original and then several variants (including the
LZ77 of gzip fame), I don't know exactly where LZW fits in with the
other variants...
> > 2. Unisys developped some changes to this algorithm
>
> One guy at a company that is now part of Unisys made some improvements.
>
That amounts to the same thing legally, I think
> > Point 5 is the reason why I think such a patent becomes unenforceable
> > in France (besides the problem with patenting an algorithm the exact
> > status of which I don't know)
>
> It's similar to the legal notion of need to defend trademarks, then?
>
Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I think so, yes
>
> The argument may be that software that implements (reads or writes) LWZ
> compression is a software simulation of the hardware it was originally
> designed for. Whether that holds water in France, I have no idea.
>
Neither do I
> Maybe it will all end if some enlightened individual patents
> patenting...
>
YEAH! Anybody here who's in a country where you can do that illing to
try it? :)
Jerome
--
*******************************
* they'll tell you what can't * mailto:ber### [at] inamecom
* be done and why... * http://www.enst.fr/~jberger
* Then do it. *
*******************************
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Jerome M. BERGER" wrote:
>
> > In point of fact, several LZ algorithms were published, but yes.
> >
> Well, there was the original and then several variants (including the
> LZ77 of gzip fame), I don't know exactly where LZW fits in with the
> other variants...
I'm not sure, either.
> > > 2. Unisys developped some changes to this algorithm
> >
> > One guy at a company that is now part of Unisys made some improvements.
> >
> That amounts to the same thing legally, I think
Based on his contract, it does, if his contract is anything like mine.
I like to give credit to individuals over corporations, though,
regardless of who gets the money.
Make an improvement, and your initial can be added: LZW?
-Mark Gordon
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Dec 1999 06:58:44 -0500, Steve Martin <sma### [at] usitnet>
wrote:
>> 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".
Hey, wait a moment!
Extracted from Infozip's COPYING (related with zip files):
There are no known patents on any of the code in UnZip. Unisys
claims a patent on LZW encoding and on LZW decoding _in an
apparatus
that performs LZW encoding_, but the patent appears to exempt a
stand-
alone decoder (as in UnZip's unshrink.c). Unisys has publicly
claimed
otherwise, but the issue has never been tested in court. Since
this
point is unclear, unshrinking is not enabled by default. It is the
responsibility of the user to make his or her peace with Unisys and
its licensing requirements. (unshrink.c may be removed from future
releases altogether.)
From that information, I assume than if the zip package is picked, and
removed all references to unshrink.c, there are no problems with LZW,
and in consequence, with Unisys.
And
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
