GIF Slips Away From Unisys; Your Move, IBM 609
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?
If they were really cool... (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
GIF (Score:2, Interesting)
It
Free
Re:If the poster is correct (Score:2, Interesting)
Because most people still use GIFs and most older browsers and paint programs don't support the PNG format. If GIFs are unencumbered by patents then it becomes the preferred format for activist web-nerds again since there's no need to worry about PNG incompatibilities with older software.
Re:If the poster is correct (Score:1, Interesting)
and animated png has been missing for a long time now.
yes it DOEs have it's uses... webcams showing the last 10 frames or radar images showing the last 10 are a really great use.
I personally cant wait for GIF to become free so I can flip off all the anti GIF people that bitch about the one graphic format that has decent transparency that is supported across ALL browsers and animation capabilities.
Yes I would like real Alpha transparency, but IE wont support it correctly in PNG for at least another 30 years.
Re:If the poster is correct (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:IBM is NOT friendly (Score:4, Interesting)
Stop spreading the lie that IBM only "defends" itself using patents.
Re:GIF sucks. Move on. (Score:1, Interesting)
Uh huh... You mean things like letting that SCO thing drag of for well over a year while the FUD continues to spread and grow?
Face it: Other companies the size of SCO have attacked IBM on more solid grounds and faced utter destruction as IBM gently farted upon them.
Meanwhile the 2.4/2.6 kernal will forever have the stigma attached that it just may... juuuuust may... contain that fabled AIX intellectual property that SCO is claiming. And if it does, we can thank IBM for that too.
Oh yeah... They've done enough for Linux.
Re:in any case (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:not even close! (Score:2, Interesting)
Some people don't have the option to live in an ideological world and must live in a realistic one.
PNG vs. JPEG (Score:4, Interesting)
After all that the textbook line.
But then he sent me a JPEG with the quality turn to max and it looked perfect and was way smaller than PNG. Do the textbooks have it all wrong?
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.
Alpha-Transparency (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why do we need GIF anymore? (Score:5, Interesting)
The GIMP does a much better job of it.
Because LZW is designed for C64s. (Score:1, Interesting)
There is no use for LZW in the world today, except for accessing GIF images. Compression has moved on since 1982.
Re:in any case (Score:1, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re:PNG's..... (Score:2, Interesting)
I'll expand on this statement a bit. MNG has so much extra stuff, it starts to feel like Flash animation. So, the question for designers becomes "is it a straight forward animation, or does it need some cool logic and effects?". The answer is either GIF, or Flash, respectively. MNG is not good enough for the 2nd choice, and overboard for the first choice. Sure, you can use MNG for the first choice, but then you feel dirty for not using it to its fullest potential. (Plus, as others have said, it's not supported by popular apps)
It expired a year ago in the US anyway! (Score:3, Interesting)
"We were able to search the patent databases of the USA, Canada, Japan, and the European Union. The Unisys patent expired on 20 June 2003 in the USA, in Europe it expired on 18 June 2004, in Japan patent expired on 20 June 2004 and in Canada until 7 July 2004. "
Re:hmm. (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not all patents, just software patents. It's debatable, but most programmers and OSS advocates are against software patents. Lots [mit.edu] of info is available if you want to see where they're coming from.
A quick cursory overview of the patent link on IBM's patent doesn't say one thing about the GIF format, just the compression algorithm
No it doesn't. It covers the LZW algorithm. The most significant use of that algorithm today is in the GIF image format. It has been supplanted by better algorithms for general compression use.
Just seems silly to 'call out' a company to release a patent.
Not so silly, the patent is likely worthless since the same algorithm had already been patented by Unisys, and IBM probably knows it.
(Although, as noted, it didn't stop them from throwing it into the mix against SCO, but then, why not? Additional counterclaims are cheap)
who cares? (Score:2, Interesting)
The point is that once GIF was obviously encumbered, people developed and moved to new (and, in fact, better) technologies. You could argue that if it wasn't for GIF patent protection, we might have been lazier about moving forward with PNG, JPG or otherwise. I don't see that there is any "hell" going on here. I bet the majority of readers here have something to do with images on a day to day basis: tell me just what proportion of this involves GIF - in other words, apart from the nice ability to slag off patents again, just who in practice is inhibited by this?
No, they use this in the SCO case (Score:5, Interesting)
infringing on this patent.
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!
wimps (Score:2, Interesting)
To be afraid to suggest to someone, your web page viewer, that perhaps they would be better off with another browser because you might lose a sum of money, is to me, cowardice, and also a long range business impracticality. That is my opiniopn, others may have other opinions, but I'll call "weenie coward" and "bad long range business planning" when I see it, and in this case, I definetly see it.
Here it is again, "weenie coward" and "bad long range business sense".
No wonder we have so much political wrongness going on now. People are cowards on inconsequential things, calling it "impractical",so how are they going to deal with *important* consequential things? The answer is "they won't". Weenies. A society of cud chewing, mooing, herd following drones, taught to never think for themselves or to go against some artifical "norm" dictated to them by some greedy assholes and by insane governments. Order followers, content to be lead around by the nose, to always do what they are told to do, to accept a shit sandwhich and to be trained to repeat "mmm, mmm good!" every time it shows up on their plate. Weenies, lead around by the nose by a handful of big corporations and a corrupt bribed and blackmailed government. Wimps.
And if your company/corporation/government insists you be a wimp or a coward or a retard, spit in their face and go do something else, that's what a real human with just a smidgen of integrity of courage would do.
If that offends anyone, too bad, it was intended to shame and offend.
Common standards are based on the 'consumer' (Score:2, Interesting)
It is of utmost importance, that we, as the end user, voice our dissaproval of the inability of IE to display png's correctly by:
- Using nonproprietary images
- Using browsers that properly display nonproprietary images correctly.
Without this, nothing will change. Because of the way the government is run these days, it is only a matter of time before the length on patents is extended by corporation force on the legislature (This hasn't happened in patenting, but I believe that it will, based on the copyright extensions that happened several years ago).Because of this, we need to practice what we preach. If we want the Web to be free (well ... whatever) and be able to develop our websites and whatnot without the fear of retaliation, we have to push the advancement.
Konqueror and Netscape on Linux both display png images correctly. I guess I'm just trying to step out of the dark ages.
Re:No, they use this in the SCO case (Score:3, Interesting)
This one?
Looks like there might be a little colateral damage!
Re:SCO v IBM - This Patent Is Being Actively Used (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not sure that's true, but IANAL. The current status of the patent probably has little to do with the status of the patent at the time of infringement.
It would probably reduce the amount of damages but would still achieve the primary purpose of making SCO burn through cash. We all know [or at lwast strongly suspect] that the total damages to IBM by SCO will far exceed the value of SCO...
Re:not even close! (Score:3, Interesting)
So what's the business case for Java applets and Macromedia shockwave and Flash? Do we just hand-wave the lack of installed compatibility when we're talking about a buzzword?
"25% of our customers will see a blank screen instead of our website. Screw 'em!"
IBM uses it's patent portfolio defensively (Score:2, Interesting)
Marc
It's pronounced jif. (Score:1, Interesting)
So it's jif. The inventor calls it jif, so jif is correct.
But you can call it anything you want.
Re:How do you pronounce "gif"? (Score:2, Interesting)
I do, for one. I just can't stand "sequel". It's like hearing nails on a chalkboard!
I heard someone pronounce it "Squirrel" once. I wanted to slap them.
And it has been so for about 1.5 years now (Score:1, Interesting)
The LZW patent, 4,558,302, became a patent on December 10, 1985. Patents from that time frame last 17 years from the date they become a patent.
So, lets do the math. December 10, 1985 + 17 years = 2002.
The patent actually expired December 10, 2002.