Truth Behind the ClearType/OpenSUSE FUD 123
Kennon writes "Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols over at Linux Watch clears up the FUD around Tuesday's Slashdot discussion concerning OpenSUSE, ClearType, and patent deals with Microsoft."
The one day you'd sell your soul for something, souls are a glut.
Re:ClearType draws from Apple II, says developer (Score:4, Interesting)
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
Gibson was born in 1955 [wikipedia.org]. That's some fast work!
SuSE Bashing aside, this affects MANY distros (Score:3, Interesting)
Second, the deal between Novell and Microsoft regarding patents was an agreement not to sue Novell's customers over patent infringement. While this might be viewed as a "patent license", it is not an explicit license and thus very limited. The implication is that it would only cover inadvertent patent violations, for example by redistributing someone elses software. Novell probably still has an obligation not to infringe any patents that it has not been granted an explicit license to use.
Microsoft didn't invent this idea. (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess prior art doesn't apply to patents anymore?
"Sub-pixel font rendering with Free&Clear - Microsoft says they invented their "ClearType" technology, but I quickly and independently "invented" the same thing . . . as had others who came years before. It is very cool, but rather obvious. "
http://www.grc.com/ct/cleartype.htm [grc.com]
Re:This hurts my head (Score:3, Interesting)
They didn't invent clear type, Steve Wozniak did (Score:1, Interesting)
So yeh, Microsoft is raping and pillaging the software community. The guy wants to avoid a patent fight spat with Microsoft, he knows he'll win, but the patent nuisance (for a patent that should never have been issued) is the problem here.
Some people would call it fraud, to apply and continue to use a patent you know had/has prior art.
Re:This hurts my head (Score:2, Interesting)
Secondly, it's a patent on pure software, simply optimizing output for a specific display type.
OS X's subpixel rendering? Adobe's "CoolType"? (Score:3, Interesting)
At least the brouhaha, while a waste of energy and attention like all FUD, is strong evidence, if any more were required, that software patents are a bad idea.
Re: This hurts my head (Score:2, Interesting)
Its perfectly legal---and theoretically, encouraged---to take a patent and use it to build the system at home. Theoretically, patents are to be in such detail that the invention they patent may be recreated from the patent.
IANAL.
Re:They didn't invent clear type, Steve Wozniak di (Score:4, Interesting)
I think it was even earlier than that, there were some links in yesterday's discussion to what looks like exactly the same feature, being investigated by Xerox even earlier. The prior art on at least the most general concepts of this (subpixel rendering by switching on individual Red, Green, or Blue color elements in a display) seems pretty damning.
But then again, the prior art against Microsoft's FAT patents was pretty damning too, and it even went through two USPTO reviews that said the patents should be invalidated, but at the 11th hour there was an additional review and suddenly they were "novel and non-obvious" again. Makes you wonder exactly Microsoft has by the short hairs that made a phone call to smooth things over... If they really need these patents, they'll never be overturned regardless of the obviousness of the prior art; the patent system is too thoroughly corrupt.