GIF Patent Prepares to Expire 632
pajamacore writes "It's worth noting that 20 June 2003 is GIF Liberation Day, the day on which US Patent 4,558,302 expires. The patent describes the LZW compression algorithm used in .gif files. That said, maybe the prices of image editing applications will drop slightly when corporations don't have to pay fees to Unisys."
Or not... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe they'll figure that the vast majority of their customers won't know and they'll pocket the savings.
Re:Or not... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Or not... (Score:5, Interesting)
better question to ask is... (Score:5, Insightful)
- some rudimentary transparency
- animation
- decent file size (albeit poor colors - only 256!)
As far as I know, all of those are available in PNG, including animation (MNG). Better color management, better compression, a lot better transparency, and even quite wide acceptance - all browsers I know of (except, maybe, Lynx) as well as a lot of apps support it.
So, why are we rejoicing and getting ready to make available all that semi-illegal code of ours that writes gifs? I think it would be better for humanity if unisys just kept the stupid patent, and let the format die. While it is cool to have as many technologies/formats open, sometimes we need to "prune" them to get rid of the ballast and garbage accumulated over the years. Some things just need to die already (gif, dbf, 8.3 filenames, etc.). But they won't die by themselves fast because people are too used to them. So helping them die, even by bad means, like keeping a patent on them, seems to do more good than harm.
Re:better question to ask is... (Score:5, Informative)
AFAIK, GIF is the only image format that supports transparent backgrounds and renders properly in IE.
This means that if you're using transparent image backgrounds, your site will look like shit on 90+ % of visitors' screens - unless you use GIF. Sad but true.
Re:better question to ask is... (Score:5, Informative)
In addition, you you can hack some support to MSIE: just use some javascript combined with "behavior" CSS attribute [eae.net]. Can you see the irony of using non-standard feature to fix non-standard behaviour? I have yet to have any luck with this hack combined with absolute positioning, so that isn't perfect. And as far as I know, one cannot use transcludent PNG as a background with MSIE, with hacks or not.
Re:better question to ask is... (Score:5, Funny)
C'mon, don't expect your manager to be able to pronounce "png" - he would probably switch the letters. I suppose a lot of
Re:better question to ask is... (Score:4, Funny)
"Did you make sure to RTP the files to CSSC?"
(I was like...... huh?)
dochood
Re:Or not... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Or not... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think adobe cares if the average high school kid or script kiddie pirates Photoshop. Why? Brand familiarity.
See, if someone pirates photoshop, they'll learn how to use it and get over the learning curve, etc. Then, when they move into a professional setting where they need a professional image editing program, they'll tell their technology guys they like photoshop, and the company will buy photoshop.
Bam, sales for photoshop.
Kinda like Quake, I think. Like how you could install it on all your friend's computers. Makes it popular.
~Wx
Re:Or not... (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, like all those kids pirated Quake and learned it, then when they grew up and went into a professional Quake-using office they told their IT guys, "buy Quake!".
No... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Or not... (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe they'll figure that the vast majority of their customers won't know and they'll pocket the savings.
That would only work if there was a monopoly on image editing applications. Otherwise, if one company tried to pocket the savings, another would undercut that company and take all its customers.
Re:Or not... (Score:4, Informative)
If price was the only thing that mattered for software, Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle, et al would not be where they are.
Re:Or not... (Score:5, Insightful)
It worked quite well for the companies that actually did the price undercutting, Wal-Mart and Southwest Airlines.
Re:Or not... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Or not... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Or not... (Score:3, Insightful)
And your point is what now? Just because it's techincally illegal doesn't stop large corporations from doing it anyways.
Take a look around and you'll see that this is practiced quite rampantly.
Re:Or not... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Or not... (Score:4, Funny)
GNU Project's logic is still valid and worthwhile (Score:4, Informative)
I hope this page [gnu.org] doesn't go away. I hope it is updated to the current state of the relevant U.S. patents on the LZW algorithm held by IBM and Unisys.
I hope the page doesn't go away because it makes a number of other points which are still valid including:
And I'm sure there are plenty of other valid observations. I consider that page to be a concise summary of some level-headed thinking on the subject of (what has come to be known as) software patents. It's often easier to point to that page than to get someone to listen to the speech on software patents [gnu.org] or to read the entire transcript of the speech [cam.ac.uk] simply because the GIF page is shorter (but less comprehensive).
Re:Or not... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Or not... (Score:5, Funny)
5. Using a toothpick to undermine the foundations of the Adobe headquarters.
That'll show 'm.
What have you got against Adobe, anyway?
Adobe helped put Skylarov in jail. (Score:5, Insightful)
People have to start somewhere to express their outrage at the corporation that helped put Dmitry Skylarov in jail [freesklyarov.org]. Fighting the DMCA is also very important, but Adobe should not be forgotten because they chose to leverage the DMCA against Skylarov. Fortunately a jury didn't see things Adobe's way.
Re:Or not... (Score:5, Insightful)
(throwing away previously modded points in this thread, simply because I don't get it)
As far as huge software companies go, they're pretty benign in my view.
And they make some absolutely excellent software. Again, my view, but I'm sure I can get someone around here to corroborate.
Photoshop is the best piece of software out there for image manipulation. Bar none.
Gimp may be nice, but it's not as easy to use and it doesn't have anywhere near the polish as its older brother.
Same goes for After Effects/Film Gimp.
PDF is wonderful. PDF is open.
Try making your living as an artist, animator or effects guy using all open-source tools. It's possible, but way more trouble than it's worth.
That's why I *buy* Adobe software, and that's why I run on a Mac platform as well. I'm fully capable of configuring and tweaking whatever linux distro is currently in vogue, and screwing with XFree so that windows don't lock (as) randomly. I just choose not to because my time is worth money, and honestly I get more work done faster in the more polished solution. Period.
I mean, did John Warnock [suck.com] piss in your cornflakes or something?
Re:Or not... (Score:5, Informative)
This is an important point. Further down the thread you have been mocked for having stock in Adobe and all that, but....
If you disagree with a company's policy in certain areas, but it's a profitable company, buying shares is a good plan. Especially if you can get above the minimum shareholding in order to attend annual general meetings, etc (often this limit is very low). You then get to put questions to the board. Being a shareholder gives you good leverage in a company, or at least more leverage than just being Joe Public. Also, you maybe get dividends and stuff ;-)
Greenpeace and others have possibly adopted this tactic, if memory serves, in order to legitimately attend and table questions at multinational company meetings. I generally agree with this, because at the end of the day, corporations are becoming bigger than governments... scary though it may seem, maybe only way to beat the system is to join it and fight from the inside. Like all these people who don't vote, and then complain when the candidate they *thought* would win does not - they have not played the system and have no excuse. Apathy and opinionated chatter is not getting us anywhere. Power to the people can only happen if people use the avenues and channels of democracy as they stand.
Re:Or not... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Gimp is free. It's also Free [fsf.org]. The Gimp rocks.
Re:Or not... (Score:4, Interesting)
Until it can read and save standard files in a way useful to me for file exchange, I don't care what the UI looks like, what features it has, or what the license is.
Oh yeah? (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, maybe the prices of image editing applications will drop slightly when corporations don't have to pay fees to Unisys.
Ha! Hahaha. Like they'll drop their prices...
I bet your typical photoshop user has no idea that GIFs are patented. Which means Adobe will feel no pressure whatsoever to lower prices. Besides, people will still pay $500 for photoshop. And the price drop would be what? maybe $20 max?
neurostarRe:Oh yeah? (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is not how well the end user understands the cost structure of producing software (of course they don't, and of course they have no clue that some patent expired.)
The question is how competitive the market for these software products are. If it is competitive, prices will fall regardless of what the customer knows. Not out of the godness of the companies hearts, but because they will have to or lose business to the competition. Of course the opposite is true as well; everybody knows that CDs have a ridiculous markup but nothing is happening because that market is not competitive at all.
Tor
Re:Oh yeah? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh yeah? (Score:4, Informative)
Have a look at the CDRs that come with any printers, scanners, webcams, etc and you will find at least some basic image editing software.
Our scanner came bundled with Adobe PhotoDeluxe, (ie, free as in beer). It is a very user-friendly simplified PhotoShop. It was perfect for the web graphics we were doing. And its native files were PhotoShop compatible in case you need to pass them on.
A slight step up is Adobe PhotoShop Elements, which is very cheap and you might find that bundled too.
Old versions of PhotoShop are very cheap (on Ebay, and elsewhere). Two or more versions behind are pocket money, and may entitle you to cheap upgrades if you get the paperwork.
Re:One problem with Gimp... (Score:4, Informative)
There is a free program pnmtotiffcmyk in the pbm pack of conversion programs. Save your gimp image as pnm first of course. It's part of the netpbm package (which is also available for windows).
Since this program is freely available, I've really got to question whether there is a patent on cymk. There has been talk on various gimp lists about adding cymk, but so far nothing concrete. Perhaps some ./ reading CS student might do this for a school project??
Re:Oh yeah? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oh yeah? (Score:5, Insightful)
My company actually LEFT OUT
And now, we are going to ADD it and NOT increase our price for that.
That's fair use of an expired patent.
No lower prices (Score:4, Informative)
Prices drop? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prices drop? (Score:3, Insightful)
And now it is explicitly not true. Since the passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, municipalities must give nondiscriminatory access to utility right-of-ways to competing cable firms.
Expires on July 7th, 2004 internationally (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Expires on July 7th, 2004 internationally (Score:3, Interesting)
Right, but as most nations don't recognize software patents, that doesn't matter as much as you might think.
It makes you wonder... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It makes you wonder... (Score:5, Insightful)
GIF can be useful (Score:5, Insightful)
At least GIF is better suited here than PNG is -- a typical transparent spacer gif is 43 bytes.
The rendering speed is also important, and here GIF is quite fast compared to many other formats.
The combination of little overhead and fast and lossless decompression makes it well suited for anything that doesn't require either really high compression or lots of colours. Which is probably one reason why the Slashdot logo at the top of the page is a GIF and not a PNG.
Regards,
--
*Art
Re:GIF can be useful (Score:4, Informative)
You can get a 1 pixel invisible image down to 68 bytes by making it grayscale. That avoids the overhead of the PLTE and tRNS chunks. The reason it can't get down to the size of a GIF (which by using a 1 bit palette can in this case can be 43 bytes, not 49) is that PNG has a mandatory file signature, and IHDR and IEND chunks that add 33 bytes to start with. The IDAT chunk then has 12 bytes of overhead plus the data. If PNG supported uncompressed images, then theoretically, we could have 2 bytes of data (1 byte for the pixel colour + 1 for the transparency), which would get you a 47 byte image. Since PNG mandates deflate compression, though, the overhead actually increases the data to 11 bytes, and thus takes the overall image size up to 68 bytes. For pretty much any non-contrived example like this, though, PNG will be smaller than GIF.
All popular web browsers except IE can display MNG (Score:3, Informative)
so is there any de-facto standard for adding simple animations to PNG?
Yes, and it's called MNG. KHTML (Konqueror and Safari) supports it. Mozilla 1.0 through 1.4 supports it. Though it has been removed from the Mozilla trunk, it'll go back in (b.m.o bug 18574) as soon as Glenn gets done reducing its code footprint. Plug-ins are available for Opera and Microsoft Internet Explorer.
If you consider MNG a bloated disaster, take a look at MNG-LC [libpng.org], which is smaller.
It will die. Thank Microsoft. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would love PNG to take off, but if IE support isn't there, its DOA.
Re:It will die. Thank Microsoft. (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you sure about that? As far as I can tell, transparency (ala gif) is handled just fine, it's alpha channels that don't work correctly on some of their IE versions (except for really high color images, they look OK on the Mac at least)
If you're comparing it to gif, though, it seems that png can do everything gif can do (animations excepted) and muc
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:It will die. Thank Microsoft. (Score:3, Informative)
You can use this hack/work around to support it in IE 5.5 and greater:
http://redvip.homelinux.net/varios/expl o rer-png-en
and if you're using them for background images, you can either make your stylesheet compile on the fly using php or perl or pyhton or whathave you or make two seperate versions and let the browser decide what it wants like i did on my site [robotholocaust.com]
In the news today... (Score:5, Funny)
JPGs at Eleven.
It was a restrictive patent (Score:5, Informative)
Stuff paying $2000 for something that can be represnted by less than 30 lines of code.
Re:It was a restrictive patent (Score:4, Funny)
i would rather pay for efficiency.
You would pay more for less code? huh?
The shockwave from that statement just tore through the whole java industry.
But cudos are in order, you are way more efficient than all those people who waste energy pressing the SHIFT key.
Reality (Score:3, Funny)
Sometimes I hate this country. Then I look at China and laugh.
Re:Reality (Score:3, Funny)
check out MacGIMP.org (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:check out MacGIMP.org (Score:3, Interesting)
How about a collected, integrated XV? It's still the best image viewer IMHO, but it is suffering badly from not being updated in a decade.
Re:check out MacGIMP.org (Score:4, Offtopic)
The dialog box said something along the lines of, "Couldn't display picture." But the fun part was, the button didn't say "OK," because, well, it probably wasn't OK. It said "Bummer."
I always thought that was a nice counterpoint to programs that say things like "All of your data has been lost" and then ask you to click "OK" No, it's NOT OK! But xv gaved you a way to acknowledge receipt of the information without having you approve of it, and I always appreciated that.
No copyright for you (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if Unisys could get a copyright on LZW code and thereby own it for another few centuries.
Copyright cannot cover a process [cornell.edu]. It may cover the LZW code libraries that Unisys may sell, but it does not cover independent implementations of the process.
Youth.... (Score:5, Funny)
Ahh what I wouldn't give to be young and naive again...
Re:Youth.... (Score:4, Funny)
The savings will be split -- that's right, split -- between additional profit to the company and reduced price to the consumer, according to a function of how competitive the market is (and other factors such as price-elasticity).
Never mind that... (Score:5, Funny)
U.S. ONLY (Score:5, Informative)
License Information on GIF and Other LZW-based Technologies [unisys.com]
"After expiration of the U.S. LZW patent on June 20, 2003, liability for patent infringement will occur only if an infringing act with respect to a product or service (e.g., developing, selling, offering to sell, making, using, distributing, downloading, exporting and/or importing) occurs in a country where the LZW patent has not expired.
Since each country has its own patent laws and rules regarding what constitutes patent infringement, effected persons may wish to seek advice from their own legal counsel."
Other Countries (Score:5, Informative)
License Information on GIF [216.239.39.100]
"The U.S. LZW patent expires June 20, 2003, the counterpart Canadian patent expires July 7, 2004, the counterpart patents in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Italy expire June 18, 2004, and the Japanese counterpart patents expire June 20, 2004. "
Re:Canadian law citations? (Score:4, Informative)
Interesting sections:
27(8) No patent shall be granted for any mere scientific principle or abstract theorem.
>Prove that Canadian law does not allow a patent on "a computing device, with means for memory, input, and output, programmed to perform the following steps: (description of LZW follows)".
No point, because then it would only cover that device. For example, let's say it convered palm pilots using this neato LZW method. No worries, I can still use it on my computer.
I doubt Canadian patent law would allow such a broad definition as "Any device using this method". Because that's what it would have to be to encompass everything the LZW patent already does.
And just because it is patented here doesn't mean the patent isn't contestable. The only patent I could find (mentioned at this [jurisdiction.com] informative site) on software was contested and the patent nullified.
How'd I do?
Tell CmdrTaco you want PNG! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd pay for a Slashdot subscription if Slashdot switched to PNGs because then I'd see they were bandwidth/cost concious.
Re:Tell CmdrTaco you want PNG! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Tell CmdrTaco you want PNG! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Tell CmdrTaco you want PNG! (Score:3, Interesting)
title.png = 3.34 KB (3,428 bytes) (PNG8 16 color palette)
A conversion would make a mere 45 byte difference.
Oh my... how could I be such an insensitive clod - I forgot some of us are still using 2400 baud modems!
Honestly, the
Re:Tell CmdrTaco you want PNG! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Tell CmdrTaco you want PNG! (Score:4, Informative)
Its been the 20th for hours now (Score:3, Funny)
Its a good thing, too, cuz its the start of the weekend, yay! Can't wait to knock off work.
Oh yeah. I'm in Australia
D.
Doesn't expire everywhere (Score:3, Informative)
The Canadian patent expires on the 6th of June, 2004, the European on the 18th of June, 2004, and the Japanese on the 20th of June, 2004.
Don't start partying until it's expired everywhere - you still need a patent license to create your .Z archives and compressed GIFs in these areas.
LZW compression still at work (Score:4, Funny)
Rejoice! (Score:5, Funny)
I'll always remember GIF.... (Score:5, Funny)
I used to string a 50ft telephone cord from my family's computer into the nearest phone jack (in the kitchen) every night and download GIFs over zmodem at 2400baud. It's a wonder I could stay awake in school.
Since the day we upgraded from CGA to VGA (256 color!) graphics, I've been a sick sick puppy.
Thank you, GIF! You made it all possible.
Re:I'll always remember ASCII art.... (Score:5, Funny)
Timely story ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Someone said that 20 years is a long time in software, and not many technologies would still be in use by the time the patent expired.
I said what about unix, and someone replied that unix is the exception. Now it looks like GIF is the other exception.
What about IBM patent 4,814,746 (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm curious if anyone knows whether the IBM patent has also expired? Or if not, when it is set to expire - that's the one thing I haven't been able to find out. I'm not familiar with patent law, so I don't know whether the patent period is fixed or variable.
Even if it is now expired, it would probably be of benefit for somewhat more familiar with the two patents to discuss the differences between them. I'm sure other Slashdotters would be interested to find out.
Look what happened to other patent holders... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are we still using GIF? (Score:4, Informative)
And don't forget:
20 June 2003: The LZW patent expires today in the United States. However, patents on LZW are still in force in other countries. Please continue to refrain from using GIFs. More importantly, do not allow your communications to be censored by the whims of patent holders. Things you can do: [burnallgifs.org] Sign the petition: Burn all GIF's [noepatents.org].
RLE compressed GIFs (Score:3, Informative)
More information, with an interesting Unisys story as well, can be found at http://www.serverobjects.com/lzw.html [serverobjects.com].
Thank you PNG... (Score:4, Insightful)
May we all continue the push for superior and open technologies. Remember that GIF becoming royalty-free does not suddenly thrust it "back" into the position of superiority; cost is not the only factor. The royalty-free-ness of GIF alternatives like PNG were only icing on top of the cake. Consider the strengths and weaknesses of available technologies and choose what best fits.
In other [somewhat old] news: MNG support has been removed from the Mozilla source tree. One of the minor rationalizations was that GIF's patent was due to be dying soon.
LZW Poem (Score:5, Funny)
Abe Lempel, Jacob Ziv and Terry Welch
Discovered a neat algorithm to squelch
CompuServe incorporated it into the GIF
Good programmers soon caught the drift
The format was published, free and open
Many useful things started to happen
Then Unisys Corp purchased the rights
And changed the terms on LZW overnight
The useful algorithm was off limits
Ransom to corporate greed and profits
On June 20, 2003, the LZW patent expired
Shame on Unisys for what has transpired
Someday Unisys books will be in arrears
While the ideas of LZW survive the years
Software Patents in the EU (Score:4, Informative)
LZW is more than just GIF. (Score:4, Funny)
Muhahahahahahahahaha.
1> Create radically awesome compression scheme.
2> Sell to some megacorp.
3> Profit!
<strongbad>Seriously, I'm so awesome!</strongbad>
Example of broken IP laws (Score:5, Informative)
Before patenting the compression technology they placed it into the public domain.
After that IBM patented it AND THEN Unisys filed a patent.
Unisys got to keep it's patent becouse they can prove they had it first. But that proof comes in the form of publishing it.
In other words anything you place into the public domain you or anyone else can clame later.
If there was no GPL the first jerk who came along would sue Linus and RMS for IP theft and win.
The reason Compuserve used this compression technology was simply it was placed into the public domain.
But today there is no public domain just IP waiting for someone to scoop up.
You should not be able to file for and receave patent protection for anything that has already been published.
Well this nightmare will soon be over.
What won't expire... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what are you saying? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So what are you saying? (Score:4, Informative)
Works great with Typo3 [typo3.com], too.
Re:So what are you saying? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a dream (Score:4, Funny)
One day, man.
Re:Impossible. (Score:4, Informative)
Incorrect. Patents are renewable under limited circumstances, particularly where the company or individual can prove that significant investment or research went into the intellectual property.
Re:good. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, it is pronounced with a J... (Score:3, Interesting)
Since we had good ties with CompuServe, the folks that invented/popularized the format, we figured that they'd know the answer. We actually called. And has per the title, the preferred way of pronouncing it is "JIF".
Yeah, I was pretty disappointed
Soft G (Score:3, Informative)
You disagree? Hey, I'm just quoting the inventors of the format. Here's the evidence:
* CompuServe used to distribute a graphics display program called CompuShow. In the documentation for version 8.33 in the FAQ section, it states:
There, straight from the inventors of the format. Convinced yet?
GIF is still relavant (Score:3, Insightful)
You dont see many company logos in jpg format.
I don't know why png has not been embraced. Probably has something to do with the web's history of browser incompatibility, etc.
Web designers are trained to design for the lowest common denominator.
I got a recent bid for a website that requires the website to be version 3 compatible.
While its now safe to say we can drop version 3 support, the conception is we still need to support it. After all there are still 486's out th
Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)
No wonder you don't remember what it is, you've probably never know. Comparing JPG and GIF is a little bit like comparing my Van (I have three kids) and your Porsche (You're single). Different formats for different uses.
Try to fit my whole family in your Porsche and you'll see why GIF cannot be surpassed (or replaced) by JPG.
Re:Naive Question (Score:5, Informative)
'gif'-like PNGs, truecolor PNGs, and boolean transparent PNGs work great everywhere, but IE (for Windows; IE for PocketPC and Mac render fine, go figure) can't handle variable alpha transparent PNGs without tricks (and the 'AlphaImageLoader' trick fails on https:// addresses due to another IE bug, horray Microsoft).
There's no reason to use non-animated gif rather than PNG. PNGs are smaller (some crappy programs do a poor job of compressing them, convert PNG to PNG in GraphicsMagik to shrink), can do truecolor so you don't have ugly dithered gif graphics, and can do variable alpha transparency (although 5 year old bugs in x86/IE require detecting IE and spitting out ugly MS-specific HTML for this; most people just settle for boolean transparency, which is a shame). Even ignoring the functionality that is hard or impossible to use on x86/IE due to IE being a buggy mess, PNG still does more than gif (except animations - almost no one supports MNG right now).
Recent versions of gd and PHP have support for all these PNG modes. I know, as I fixed them.
Re:GIMP = LAME-O (Score:3, Funny)
Re:GIMP = LAME-O (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, right, tabbed browsing is for terrorists. Pop up ad blocking? Those companies need to make their money too!
GO GATOR!