Slashdot Log In
GIF Slips Away From Unisys; Your Move, IBM
Posted by
jamie
on Wed Jul 07, 2004 08:00 AM
from the do-the-right-thing dept.
from the do-the-right-thing dept.
Twenty years ago, Terry Welch's improvement on Lempel-Ziv compression appeared in IEEE Computer magazine. The authors of unix 'compress' and the GIF standard incorporated that algorithm without realizing it was patent-pending. When the submarine patent surfaced ten years later, its new owner Unisys intimidated developers and web authors into moving away from GIFs, inspiring the creation of a better standard, though sadly still a less popular one. Today, July 7, 2004, Unisys's last LZW patent (in Canada) expires, leaving GIF once again free... almost. See, there's the small matter of IBM's patent, granted on the same algorithm, which is valid for another two years. That still has a chilling effect on GIF development, though the consensus seems to be that IBM would lose any court action it tried to bring. So how about it, IBM? You've got nothing to lose! Want to make a lot of geeks happy and release that final patent into the public domain?
Related Stories
[+]
The GIF Format is Finally Patent-Free 369 comments
tonymercmobily writes "Not many people noticed that the GIF file format is only now free from patents, as of the 1st of October 2006. Quick recap: first in 1999 Unisys tried to extort money from users and developers. Then, in 2003 the world hoped that the saga would finally be over. Then, in 2004, it was IBM's turn. Now, the SAGA seems to be over for real! Does anybody find Unisys' page on GIF as hilarious as I do...?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
GO IBM! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they use this in the SCO case (Score:5, Interesting)
infringing on this patent.
Parent
Indeed they do. (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO's answer to IBM's counterclaims accuses it, among other things, of selectively enforcing it. I'm not quite sure what basis there is in law for using that as a defense, however, or if that was just boilerplate text in SCO's reply.
Parent
If the poster is correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If the poster is correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, one reason is that, once-upon-a-time, we had to build apps for browsers that didn't support .png, so even though we could handle .pngs, we had to consider our clients who were stuck with .gifs. Thankfully, even the lowliest [microsoft.com] of browser almost supports .png these days.
Parent
not even close! (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed, the web would be much more beautiful if IE supported alpha transparency in PNGs.
Parent
Transparency not a *required* part of PNG (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong.
That's a techie urban-legend. The truth is that IE6 does support all required PNG features. Therefore it "supports PNG".
Yes, IE6 doesn't support PNG transparency, at least not in any easy way. However PNG transparency is an optional part of the PNG spec. That IE6 doesn't support transparency properly is unfortunate but doesn't invalidate their meeting the required PNG spec.
Furthermore as others have pointed out there are indeed work-arounds (ugly ones) that will enable reliable PNG transparency on IE6. Also as others have pointed out (including MS staffers) even if IE7 were to ship tomorrow and support PNG et al we'd still be stuck with a huge IE6-using population for years to come.
It would be great if IE, and indeed all of the browsers, were to fully meet all relevant standards. It would also be great if they were to then go on and meet more of the optional parts of those standards, including PNG transparency. However lets hold everyone's feet to the fire on these, not pick on one author's neglecting a feature many would like while they and others are still missing more fundamental required parts of specs.
Parent
Re:in any case (Score:5, Insightful)
Your comment makes no sense in this context.
IE doesn't support alpha transparency in PNGs, and that's substandard on their part, but I don't think the web would change much if it did unless everybody started bloating their sites with transparent effects where it is not needed.
You couldn't be more wrong. If people could use PNG the way it's supposed to be used, we could have rounded corner graphics that don't suck, change background colors without having to modify all images to match, have different background colors on different pages without the need for extra graphics for each different color background, allow user-selectable page colors, et cetera. It would actually save a lot of bandwidth.
As it is, there is very little benefit to using PNG in most cases, so people don't switch.
And PNGs with alpha-transparency are not "bloated" by any means.
Parent
Re:in any case (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:in any case (Score:5, Interesting)
See, PNG supports 256 levels of transparency. Gradients. Oh, the joy of no jagged edges.
The problem is, yes, a 24 bit PNG with 8 bits of alpha can get rather large, especially when they are used for what they weren't intended for; replacing JPGs.
Open up this link [mozilla.org] in anything but IE (I tested it with Mozilla and Opera) to see some 8-bit alpha. And a cool little demo to boot.
Parent
Re:not even close! (Score:5, Insightful)
Some people don't have the option to live in an ideological world and must live in a realistic one.
Elsewehere in this thread I've mentioned that I continue to use .gifs, because it's not realistic to ditch them. Regardless; I'd hardly descibe my position as "ideological" or "unrealistic" - it's one based on:
1. Portable Network Graphics work with all major browsers - now (IE doesn't support one area of PNGs, but it doesn't lose any functionality over GIFs, as GIFs don't provide 8-bit alpha-blending anyway);
2. GIFs may - as this article is about - still be patent-encumbered.
In what way is promoting increased use of PNGs unrealistic?
Parent
Re:not even close! (Score:5, Insightful)
Switching to PNG because 5% or browsers will benefit is the unrealistic part.
Well, all browsers, including IE, can use PNGs. I presume you're refering to alpha-blending, which IE can't - currently - use? Use of non-IE browsers is steadily rising, as support for IE seems either non-existent or focused on "IE7" or whatever it'll be called. This suggusts - to me - two things:
1. Increasing numbers of people are using browsers - now - that do support alpha-blending;
2. The next iteration of IE is likely to support alpha-blending and is probably due soon (maybe soon like Longhorn, but soon, anyway...);
Either way, catering for the present-and-the-not-too-distant future doesn't seem that unrealistic.
Parent
Re:oh well.... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:If the poster is correct (Score:5, Informative)
This website [eae.net] will tell you how to turn it on. You can see it working on my website.
No idea why it's not on by default, but if it works...
Parent
Re:If the poster is correct (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:If the poster is correct (Score:5, Informative)
Bob Berry, the developer of CompuShow for CompuServe (remember them - the people that invented the GIF format?) included with it an animated GIF89 format file that had a picture of him. It had a speach bubble with him saying:
Oh, incidentally, it's pronounced "JIF"
A quick google later and I've found a web site which has this, and other evidence that
http://www.olsenhome.com/gif/
Thanks for playing
Parent
Re:If the poster is correct (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
MNGs (Animated PNGs) and Mozilla (Score:5, Informative)
If you would like to get MNG back into Mozilla, then you can follow/vote/contribute to Bugzilla bug 18574
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1857 4
(Please don't post useless comments on that bug)
Parent
Re:If the poster is correct (Score:4, Informative)
"png" is found twice -- both of which are related to the original post.
Now you know why we care. The web community uses gif more than png. For better or worse...
Davak
Parent
Re:If the poster is correct (Score:5, Insightful)
The PNG and GIF situation is like the OGG and MP3 situation. Sure, OGG may be better, but everyone already knows what MP3 is, has all their songs in MP3 format, has programs that know what do wo with MP3s, has players that know what MP3s are, etc. etc.
Parent
Re:If the poster is correct (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Why do we need GIF anymore? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why do we need GIF anymore? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Why do we need GIF anymore? (Score:5, Informative)
1. Blending with any background means you can change the background globally and not worry about re-blending all of the images.
2. An image which is produced externally (e.g. by a partner) can blend with your layout cleanly without being customized.
However, MOST uses of alpha blending in web design would ACTUALLY be better done in SVG if SVG in browsers could finally get first-class status.
Why? Well, just for starters, LCDs and CRTs have different optimial anti-aliasing strategies. If I want to put a circle on a Web page, right now I have to choose one of those strategies ahead of time (or resort to a plug-in). If we allow SVG "images", then we can simply render that circle however the user directs it to be (presumably because they've selected a "CRT-friendly" or "LCD-friendly" preference in their browser or desktop).
Once you eliminate anti-aliasing as a concern, there are still reasons to do alpha-blending in regular images (such as those above), but the general case (logos, text, shapes, etc) will be handled more cleanly.
Parent
Re:Why do we need GIF anymore? (Score:5, Insightful)
The quality of a web site is determined more by it's substance than by it's appearance.
Good web site design doesn't even require images.
Alpha blending is not critical.
It's nice, but IMO it's ranks below "spell checker" in the hierarchy of good web site design tools.
-- less is better.
Parent
Re:Why do we need GIF anymore? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Why do we need GIF anymore? (Score:5, Informative)
Many people also believe PNG's to generally produce larger images to GIF, if youre generating PNG's using the 'recomended settings' then yes for many images this is the case, but if your image doesn't need 16.7 milion colors and full alpha-transparency, don't enable them switch to pallete based with no-transparnecy.
Parent
Re:Why do we need GIF anymore? (Score:5, Interesting)
The GIMP does a much better job of it.
Parent
Why should we care (Score:5, Insightful)
What would be more interesting is suing someone over it. This patent "cold war" is annoying - it would be more beneficial to see an all-out war where large companies crumble, and the idiocy of software patents is demonstrated once and for all. Cold war only server to suffocate, and masses never learn of the damage being done, because it's so invisible.
Interesting article on how IP law conflicts with ancient chinese tradition is here [slashdot.org]
Not in the old days (Score:4, Interesting)
Nowadays IBM is on the rebound, and wants to put forth a kinder and gentler face. In as such, along with the almost impossible task of enforcing a practically public domain standard, it would be politically correct for them to just look the other way on GIFs.
Obligatory Troy ref. (Score:5, Funny)
PNG (Score:5, Insightful)
</TokenMicroSuckJab>
Re:PNG (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:PNG (Score:5, Funny)
Too bad all the exploits I wrote have failed to convince people to switch to functional web browsers and rid the world of MSIE once and for all.
Or maybe I shouldn't have said that.
Parent
Am I missing something? (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally think having LZW is of much more significance than GIF.
SCO v IBM - This Patent Is Being Actively Used (Score:5, Informative)
Actually that patent is being used in IBM's (second amended) counterclaims [groklaw.net] in the SCO v IBM case.
Re:SCO v IBM - This Patent Is Being Actively Used (Score:5, Informative)
While it would be nice for IBM to release the patent to the public domain, they would have to drop this particular claim from the SCO lawsuit if they did.
Parent
Alpha-Transparency (Score:5, Interesting)
LZW is USEFUL and NON-OBVIOUS (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a big breakthrough when algorithms like LZW, which compressed data that contained repeated multi-byte patterns (like text, or bitmap drawings), were developed. The previous state of the art was to pre-analyze the data and build a table that would have to be exchanged before the data could be decompressed (like Huffman encoding). LZW lets you built the table on-the-fly as the data is compressed, and exchange it on-the-fly as its being decoded (because the compression "table" and the data stream are actually the same.)
LZW does seem simple to us now; in fact one standard Job Interview question I ask is to put the LZW algorithm on the whiteboard! However, for those of use who have been around for more than 20 years, it was a significant breakthrough.
Improved JPEG compression possible, too! (Score:5, Interesting)
If IBM would release this patent, we could change some #defines in the JPEG code and get 10% smaller pictures with no change in quality.
Thad Beier
How do you pronounce "gif"? (Score:5, Interesting)
OK.. I have been watching the debate for several years (it's like watching the grass grow). Here's where things are:
There are several arguments for GIF being pronounced with a HARD G:
1) "G" stands for Graphical. Graphical has a hard G.
2) The majority of people pronounce it that way.
3) Most words that start with G have a hard G.
The main case for Soft G is that the designers of the file format specifically stated in their specification document that it's a soft G.
Item 1 has been shot down as follows: Yes, G stands for graphical (*as specified by the designers of the file format*). Three problems with that:
a) The technical pronounciation of Graphical is gha-raf-i-cal. So it's not the same phonetical sound as hard G. You would need to then pronounce it Gh-IF, NOT hard G "GIF".
b) What something stands for has nothing to do with how an acronym is pronounced. Modem, for example, stands for modulation/demodulation. Is it pronounced "mah-deem"? Laser would be pronounced as if it rhymes with brassiere... etc. The fact that g stands for graphical has nothing to do with the pronounciation of the acronym.
c) If you are referring to the word "graphical" as the basis for the argument, then you are basing your argument on the the words picked by the designers, and used in the specification. And in that specification, the designers said that it's pronounced JIFF like the peanut butter. So for consistency, if you go back to the specification to determine what it stands for, then you must live by their specified pronounciation.
Item 2 has been shot down because the majority doesn't rule on matters of punctuation. (pronounciation?)
Item 3 has been shot down because there is no rule. There are MANY words that have a soft G pronounciation. People have even argued that GIF is part of Gift, and so they should sound the same. (Gin (soft g) and gink (hard g) are examples that shoot down that logic.)
So we go back to the specification... no one seems to be able to logically shoot this down. The folks who invented the file format decided what it would be called, and how to pronounce it. If you want to invent your own file format, you can pronounce it any way you want. You can even pick a symbol, and then be referred to as "The file format formerly known as Prince". But as inventor, it's your call.
I want to say this in a *gentle* way... the *gist* of my message is that most GIF pronounciation arguments amount to *gibberish*, when you consider the *general* logic behind them. I'll let the *genie* out of the bottle here: Have a *gin* and tonic, and cool your *genitals*. You have to go back to the *genesis* of the file format, at the *germination* of the idea, when they first *generated* the specification. to determine the correct pronounciation. It is soft G, like JIFF.
(it's really fun to read the posts where people write.. "Those who pronounce GIF as JIF..." and correctly read that aloud ("Those who pronounce JIF as JIF"))
OK.. let this be the definitive guide to pronouncing GIF. You can pronounce it any way you want, but if you are one who insists on being "correct", get used to saying JIF. And I haven't read a logical, solid argument YET for pronouncing it with a hard G. Right now, Soft G is winning the debate, and it's not even close!
Re:GIF sucks. Move on. (Score:5, Informative)
You're talking about an obsolete technology [GIF] that nobody cares about.
I'd question that. Check Google images [google.com] and see how many web sites still exclusively use .gifs. Not to mention a certain main-stream browser whose support for .pngs is still patchy.
I guess you and I have different definitions of "obsolete".
Parent
Re:PNG's..... (Score:5, Informative)
You can't make animations with PNG files....
Sure you can, only the result is called MNG [libpng.org].
Parent
Except from what I've understood... (Score:5, Informative)
I use PNG quite a bit, but mainly as a competitor to TIF files, but I do prefer to use PNG over GIF in websites too. However, I'm only using non-transparent, plain PNGs for maximum compatibility.
Animated GIFs? Oh, right. I turned those off, along with pop-ups. If I wanted that, I'd actually use flash or something like that. I figure either you don't block stuff (which means GIF + flash) or you block stuff, in which case you don't see either. Either way, I don't see much room for GIF files...
Kjella
Parent
Re:PNG's..... (Score:5, Informative)
When I led the process of drafting the PNG specification, GIF animation did not yet exist. Animation was not part of the original GIF specification. The GIF89a specification *did* offer a mechanism for including multiple images in a single file, and a very basic (but, in retrospect, effective) mechanism for replacing only a specified part of the preceding image. But whether this was supposed to be animation with a time component was never defined, and there was in fact no way to specify how long each frame was supposed to appear, probably because the real intent was to be able to compose a single final still image from many sections. Multiple image GIFs were a footnote to the GIF specification which hardly anybody used until Netscape stepped in.
Netscape's animated GIF format was a clever hack on top of this: they defined a new GIF chunk to specify the pause between frames.
Here's the kicker: Netscape was repeatedly invited to participate in the PNG design process. They had someone reading the list, I gather, but they never offered any suggestions or contributions. If they had, they would likely have been considered very seriously.
But instead, the first we heard of GIF animation was its public release in Netscape (2.0 beta, if I recall correctly). They could have contributed to the design of a PNG or MNG that did include animation and, by way of that compelling feature, would have been more likely to quickly replace GIF. But they didn't.
We (the PNG designers) did consider retrofitting animation into PNG when Netscape's animated GIF appeared. In fact, I lobbied for that at one point. Unfortunately we had already finalized the functional specification and there was no hope of reaching agreement on how to "jam in" the animation feature at the last minute on top of an otherwise pretty elegant image format.
Instead, the MNG group was formed to create a specification for a powerful lossless animation format. And they succeeded -- but MNG has yet to really catch fire, and animated vector formats like SWF and SVG are gradually replacing animated GIF anyway for most purposes. At the end of the day, lossless bitmap animation is a pretty bandwidth-intensive proposition.
Parent
Re:This is cause for celebration. (Score:5, Informative)
Terry A. Welch, "A Technique for High Performance Data Compression", IEEE Computer, Vol. 17, No. 6, 1984, pp. 8-19.
If you don't want to go to a library and look that up, then Google will find you about 12000 hits on "Welch LZW", and the first few all seem to be exactly what you want.
Parent
Re:This is cause for celebration. (Score:5, Informative)
the algo is/was very widely known.
Parent
Re:PNG vs. JPEG (Score:5, Informative)
Also: make sure your PNG encoder is configured correctly. In most cases you want to be using the 'adaptive' filter.
Parent
Re:PNG vs. JPEG (Score:5, Informative)
JPEG, like MPEG (and Vorbis, Theora,
PNG images, on the other hand, encode the image exactly as it looks. Basically, a PNG image is a collection of pixels, some metadata, optionally compressed with deflate (same algorithm used by gzip).
JPEG images are the better choice for photograpic images (which is what they are intended for), where the exact pixel colors don't matter that much. PNG is better for line drawings, text, high contrast images; basically anything that doesn't bear slight changes to the colors. For large images, JPEG can be significantly smaller, making the case for using JPEG for screen dumps and such.
Parent
Re:jamie needs to hit the books. (Score:5, Insightful)
I traded email with several people who know the history of this algorithm and its patents fairly well. I wasn't able to get a quote from a legal expert backing this up by press time, but it hardly matters because this opinion indeed is the consensus of those I have talked to. And I mentioned the duplicate-patent issue to an IBM PR rep, who had plenty of time but didn't offer a correction.
I stand by what I wrote.
Parent