Apple Patent Blocking PNG Development 357
Daniel writes: "Apple has a patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,379,129) on compositing a source and destination image using a mask image. This patent appears to read on alpha channel transparency, which the PNG and MNG file formats use. APPLE has declared in their patent statement to the Scalable Vector Graphics Working Group that their patent is only available for RAND Licensing. Since this patent appears to read on the PNG file format, Apple is hampering work on the PNG and MNG file formats.
Perhaps Apple would like to clarify this situation by explicitly stating that this patent does not cover the PNG and MNG file formats or by RF Licensing their patent to the PNG and MNG development groups.
Alternatively, the PNG and MNG developers are asking people to submit prior art in order to invalidate Apple's patent. SGI in particular appears to have prior art with their 'blendfunction.' Make sure the prior art you submit is older than May 08, 1992, the filing date of Apple's patent."
1992? (Score:3, Interesting)
For some non-Apple prior art, when was the first version of Photoshop released? Alpha compositing is its bread and butter, and I'm pretty sure even the earliest versions let you turn an image into a selection.
Re:1992? (Score:2, Informative)
The patent law allows one year since the date of public disclosure until the patent is filed. Therefore if you were looking at it in 1991 and they filed patent in 1992, they are still OK.
Re:1992? (Score:3, Insightful)
This patent is only good for toilet paper.
Patents are granted by the patent office. They are not Valid until tested in a law court. It is not the patent office's job to determine whether there is prior art. If they know there is, then they will not grant the patent. If they are not certain then they will grant and wait for someone else to challenge (no sense in wasting taxpayer's money).
As others have said, Apple have to maximise the shareholder value or the directors might go to jail. So even if they are certain that there is prior art, they will still file a patent - after all, it may be that no one bothers to challenge. Then, when it turns out Apple accidentally infringes some other, equally worthless, patent, they can do a mutual exchange. The shareholders will be impressed, and the potential for lawsuits reduced.
This is considered sound business practice in the USA.
It may be seen in a different light by the rest of the world, but WTF.
SantaClara County Blues (Score:2)
Hahahahahhahah! So now, instead of putting directors and officers in jail for legitimate legal transgressions, environmental damage, collusion, union-busting, bribery, corruption and the like, which people have been demanding. Instead the slugs in the corporate offices hide behind SantaClaraCounty vs. Southern Pacific Railroad [iiipublishing.com], officer non-liability, and various other bits of ill-logic, but NOW you suggest that unless they push the moral bounds of the purpose of patents, that they rob from the community that empowers them, that unless they transgress against the public domain and the intellectual pursuits of a free community - that they WOULD GOTO JAIL!
What a sad fucking statement that is. If that is true, which I accept, probably is; that if it is true, you Yankees need to do some serious re-thinking about the methods to which you organize your goddamned affairs.
Re:SantaClara County Blues (Score:2)
Corporate officers, directors, and employees are liable (civilly and criminally) for their own actions. They can be liable for the actions of subordinates if they knew about them or (rarely) if the they should have known about them.
Corporate personhood is a limited legal doctrine which asserts that corporations have equal protection under the law and the right to due process of law. That's it.
It has nothing to do with limitations on sharehold liability (which do exist) or non-existant limitations on the liability of corporate officers.
What a stupid system (Score:2)
Patents are granted by the patent office. They are not Valid until tested in a law court. It is not the patent office's job to determine whether there is prior art.
While I'm not questioning that this is how it works, I think it should not work this way. Going to court is expensive. And, more often than not in cases like this, it's having the better and higher paid lawyer that decides who wins, not being right. So the deck is immediately stacked against open standard development projects such as PNG. Unless they can enlist rich and powerful allies, they're hosed. Apple's got the muscle and the lawyers to force compliance because the mere threat of going to court, and the resultant expense and hassle, is a very big stick, even if Apple doesn't have a chance of winning the case.
The civil law system we have in place right now is very easily used by bullies for bullying. And that sucks.
-Rob
Re:1992? (Score:2)
Re:1992? (Score:4, Interesting)
1992 is the filing date.
It no longer matters under U.S. law when they claim invention, under the new patent regime, which is since 1987 IIRC. (The U.S. in the eighties amended its patent and copyright laws to make them conformant to international standards.)
As another poster pointed out, they're allowed public disclosure of the content of the patent for a year before their filing date. Any earlier disclosure and they themselves are prior art.
However, for prior art from other companies or from private individuals, the day before the patent is filed is early enough to qualify as valid prior art. There was an interesting case with the patent on the Magic: the Gathering collectible card game, as TSR released a competitor to Magic about four days before the patent was filed. Hasbro now owns both companies, but I believe Steve Jackson Games was still able to use the TSR game as prior art to knock down the collectible card game patent.
Yes, the U.S. Patent Office lets you patent the rules to games. No other patent office in the world does. There are worse things than software patents out there.
Re:1992? (Score:2)
There's no sense in bitching them out about this. Their work very likely predates every other computer manufacturer except for work done at Xerox/PARC. And we all know that story...
Dead Obvious? (Score:2, Insightful)
Really? (Score:3, Insightful)
This argument is raised every time there is a patent dispute discussed on slashdot yet I'm always a little uncomfortable with it. We say something is "obvious" but we say so many years after it was invented (perhaps) and patented; years during which we have used it and become familiar with the concept. Was it really obvious when it was developed and patented or has it only become "obvious" because of it's subsequent widespread use and our consequent familialarity with the concepts involved?
In this particular case I suspect that the concept was indeed obvious by 1992 when the patent was issued - that seems pretty late in the game for such a basic concept in computer graphics. If it was obvious it won't be hard to find prior art. But in general we should recognise that concepts that are obvious to us now after long use were often breakthrough innovations obvious to no one when they were first developed.
Re:1992? (Score:2)
What a pain in the ass... (Score:3, Interesting)
From what I understand, this patent tries to over-broadly apply to all in-file 'Alpha-channel' blending techniques.
My suggestion is to create an open-patent free protocol that replaces one file transparency with two-file transparency. IE, one file is the base image, and the second file acts as a transparency mask. Since it uses two files, this technique should be free and clear of the Apple patent, right?
An HTML tage for something like this would read something like
< img src="file.jpg" mask="mask.jpg" >
Re:What a pain in the ass... (Score:2, Funny)
You think THAT's bad... (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM has a patent on that.
Re:You think THAT's bad... (Score:4, Offtopic)
No, but they've definitely used it to their advantage. I came across this information around a decade ago, so forgive me if I'm overly broad or forgotten some of the details, but this is how I understand IBM operated during the original Attack Of The Clones.
Let's say you and I decided back in 1986 to start building IBM compatible PC's. Hey, everyone's doing it, we'll sell 'em cheaper than IBM and make a fortune. So we get the board and case suppliers online, license our own version of the Phoenix BIOS and negotiate bundling licenses for MS-DOS, and we're underway.
Pretty soon after getting started, we get a nice little packet from IBM's legal department which contains photocopies of a few PC-technology-related patents held by IBM, and a polite letter wishing us success in our venture and inviting us to come on in to negotiate a patent-licensing agreement. You and I, being young turks who've never dealt with Big Blue, decide that IBM isn't going to bother with us over a few patents, and blithely continue our little operation.
Some time later (reports vary), there's a knock on our door. Several suits enter, one of them carrying a largish briefcase. They introduce themselves as legal representatives of the IBM Corporation, and in the course of time reveal the contents of the case. In it are complete copies of over four hundred patents with direct application in the construction of a fully IBM-compatible PC, covering everything from the ISA bus to the way the cursor moves when you hit the Enter key. They explain the situation to us, and finally dawn breaks upon our fevered brows.
We sign an agreement granting us permission to use any and all patents involved in PC construction, in return for a nice healthy royalty to IBM for every PC we make. We also sign a non-disclosure agreement which states that we will not only keep the agreement confidential, we will keep the existence of the agreement confidential.
Thus, for several years, IBM made money from every PC ever made, whether it had IBM on the label or not. I assume the patents in question have expired by now, but IBM is a technology-creating machine even now, and a large chunk of their revenue still comes from royalties.
Side note: I fully support this kind of use of intellectual property. If I create something and someone else is making money directly from my creation, I should profit as well. If someone is using my creation for free, however, that's another kettle of fish, and I lack room in these margins to deal with that issue fully.
Re:You think THAT's bad... (Score:2, Funny)
Then you wont mind going to hell, when God sees you made money off of his creations with out giving him royalities. >)
Re:You think THAT's bad... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:You think THAT's bad... (Score:2)
Thus, for several years, IBM made money from every PC ever made, whether it had IBM on the label or not.
It's my understanding is that IBM had to licence those patents to you under Reasonable and Non-discriminatory terms (RAND) due to anti-trust restrictions. When the restrictions were lifted, we got closed tech like MCA with much steeper fees.
I'm curious if you negotiated with them, or if they just gave you a pricesheet. (The sums I've heard bandied about were something like $5 per PC. AFAIK, IBM is still getting royalties for VGA controllers and some other bits.)
Re:You think THAT's bad... (Score:2)
Uhhh, not in the USA. You, me, and most small towns don't have the money to defend themselves in court for the years it takes to resolve an IP dispute with a large company like IBM. A lawsuite from them or any giant company is the end of the battle even when they are wrong. That is the real world. Learn to recognize it. You are in it.
what if (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:what if (Score:2, Insightful)
There are like 20 comments at this point. It is clear there is no outrage. Why didn't I notice this earlier?
I for one am extremely outraged. I'm sick of this shit. I'm sick of being pushed around by corps. Might makes right. It sickens me that I cannot in good faith buy from virtually any company. I don't want my money paying for this bullying. This ranting does nothing though. Apple's betting most people won't care and they're probably right. Heck how many people have the balls to even boycott RIAA member record companies? How many people have the balls to reject bullshit dvd's? Not that boycotting them makes any difference whatsoever. But how much of your money has gone toward buying politians? How much has gone toward bullying PNG? Some of the money is mine. It makes me sick. I buy this shit anymore. Even one of my favorite bands, the anti-establishment, anti-big record comany, anti-MTV NOFX, has a lead singer who started an RIAA member record company. How can I justify purchasing from them any longer? Thank you. I'll go back to my cave now.
Re:what if (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you read this [w3.org] linked page? Have you read any statements made by Apple that they are using this patent to prevent you from using the PNG format?
If you look at that page, you will see that Apple does offer a license for the patent as part of the SVG 1.0 patent which is being put together. It looks like they are just being cautious in order to keep their rights to the patent intact, but still allow it to be used for PNG and SVG.There are plenty of greedy corporations out there and Apple may in fact be one, but don't assume they are without looking at all the facts. Take a look at the sites listed in this article, write to Apple and ask questions, express your thoughts to Apple. If you are not then satisfied with what you see then you can make as much noise about it as you want. Making a big deal about this just because someone has implied wrongdoing on Apple's part is just being a follower.
Good luck on that one (Score:2, Funny)
So, is Apple going to go after the Photoshop or Gimp people ? that would really make them look like an ass ...
Re:Good luck on that one (Score:2)
Re:Good luck on that one (Score:2)
FUD? (Score:5, Insightful)
PNG has been around for a while now, and Apple has never(AFAIK) said anything about it in the past. I really don't see how this changes anything.
Now we're gonna get all these slashbots telling us how Apple is evil and everyone should boycott OS X/Darwin because of this, when they really haven't done anything. Chicken Little ought not be the standard tone of every Slashdot story.
Re:FUD? (Score:2)
No, but most patents are, especially ones with regards to software.
Re:FUD? (Score:3, Interesting)
discussion about this at the same time the whole W3C RAND licensing issue was a big deal, there has
not been anything since then (unless, of course I was unsubscribed from the PNG lists without my
knowledge, hard to tell when you get a few hundred
linux-kernel emails a day).
In any case, no threats from Apple ever about PNG, just speculation and pre-emptive prior art
gathering on the part of the PNG group.
Re:FUD? (Score:2, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong (hint: I don't think I am), but wouldn't that statement have applied to GIF/UNISYS?
BugBear.
How soon we forget our history. (Score:5, Insightful)
It was well known that de-facto standard for file compression in the net, "compress", was covered by the Unisys compression patent. However, showed no interest in enforcing the patent outside hardware (modems and the like), and would informally tell people who asked that.
Nonetheless the FSF insisted on having a patent free compression format for use by GNU, and eventually settled on gzip. This made some people angry, it was annoying to have to deal with a new compression format, and they claimed the FSF was seeing ghosts and that Unisys would never change their policy.
However, as we all know, Unisys *did* change their policy, allthough the target wasn't compress (which meanwhile had lost most of its markedshare to gzip), but GIF which used the same algorithm internally, and had become a big thing thanks to the WWW. Thankfully, at that time we had gzip, and could create PNG fast using the same code.
The morale "they haven't enforced the patent yet" provide false security. Companies don't enforce software patents until it become economically profitable to do so, typically when the algorithm is in so common use that it will be expensive to switch to an alternative. What we need is a legally binding promise not to enforce the patent.
Re:How soon we forget our history. (Score:3, Insightful)
One must remember that the percentage of sales a patent is good for in royalities is directly related to how important the patented technology is to the application using the technology.
Re:FUD? (Score:2)
Apple has a history of suing others w.r.t. patents. This is the reason that in the 80s and part of the 90s, Apple was subject to a boycott of the FSF (MSFT never was).
MSFT might look meaner and more dangerous to us, but that is only because of it's size. When it comes to unethical practices Apple is at least as bad; we can only be glad that Apple didn't win, or we (the free software community) would have an even more dangerous enemy.
B.t.w. it seems there never comes an end to these patent things. It is really tiring. Why not just go on frontal collision course with this &^#&^$: Blatently violate as many software patents as possible in Open Software, distribute it underground or from bases in Europe (where software patents still don't apply and politics is tending against them) and just say f*ck you against the US patent system. It would be interesting to see what happens. It might spark a healthy discussion, if not inside the US then at least between the US and the EU.
Re:FUD? (Score:2, Interesting)
You can say whatever you want against patents but they are not the root of all evil. Patents have been an accepted part of doing business on this planet for a very long time. And they are not likely to disappear any time soon because like it or not they are essential to commerce. There is nothing colossally more wrong with being able to patent software than there is with patenting hardware. If I make a living by it why should I spend time developing software if I can not protect my self from people ripping me off??? If a commercial software developer comes up with a clever way of coding something he has a right to patent it like any other inventor. Open source organizations will have to live with the fact that if some technology is patented by a commercial organization they can not use it free of charge and without permission. Pay up or bugger off that is the rule of the game. What Open source organizations can do is either come up with alternatives and/or they can stop whining about patents and try to beat Commercial organizations at their own game by patenting software them selves. Of course there is a thin line between people protecting their patented inventions and a few greedy misguided individuals b*tt f*cking patent-laws and using them in ways these laws were never intended to kill of pesky competitors but that still does not make patents the root of all evil
With regard to Apple: If Apple has a patent then it is Apples right to sue those who violate them. With regard to Apple I admit to being somewhat unfamiliar with its long and distingushed history of using patents to block file formats. Were these suits legitimate attempts at protecting its rights with regard to its patented inventions or were they all purely malicious attemts at killing off competitors??? And besides what do you think Apple has to gain from Killing PNG off?
Re:FUD? (Score:5, Informative)
There's a huge difference between software innovation and hardware innovation. Software innovation is sequential and complementary [researchoninnovation.org]. Software development is not a zero sum game. Developers have always used the work of others to build, improve and enhance functionality. In the open source and Free Software worlds, this works through availability of source and the distribution licenses. In the commercial worlds, it works through user groups, conferences and special interest Web sites (like this one [gamasutra.com]) where people can share ideas and code.
If I make a living by it why should I spend time developing software if I can not protect my self from people ripping me off???
Be my guest. Discover a new algorithm without any access to the work of others (I'd be impressed with that straight away) and then patent it. Oops. Is it too expensive? Darn. It seems only the big companies can afford to patent XORing a bitmap with the background to achieve transparency, something I thought up independently when I was 12. And are they protecting themselves from others ripping off this "innovation". Nope - they use patents for attack, not defence. So smaller developers can't write software even when protected by the patent system.
If a commercial software developer comes up with a clever way of coding something he has a right to patent it like any other inventor.
This is a great idea - in theory. The problem is that there are no "clever ways of coding something" which don't boil down to techniques which have been used for years: linked lists, hash tables, look up tables, mathematical operations, bitwise operations and basic algorithms used on basic data structures. It's easy to check this too - pick any software patent held by say IBM, get it translated into English or pseudocode and it will be a trivial operation. Guaranteed.
Open source organizations will have to live with the fact that if some technology is patented by a commercial organization they can not use it free of charge and without permission.
Do you mean technology or software specifically? If software, then commercial organisations should not be using free or open source software at all. Come to think of it, they shouldn't be using the Internet either.
Pay up or bugger off that is the rule of the game. What Open source organizations can do is either come up with alternatives and/or they can stop whining about patents and try to beat Commercial organizations at their own game by patenting software them selves.
Software innovation doesn't happen when development is hampered by a mass of patents. In the non-software worlds, the inventor needs to recoup his costs and thus I can see the need for a limited time of protection. But in software, all that happens is those that can afford to hold patents use them as a weapon against those that can't. And very few true innovations happen in large patent-holding companies. It's the garage operations, the one or two guys in their back rooms who come up with new stuff all the time.
And why should non-US programmers pay license fees to someone like IBM in the US? What gives them the right to tell me whether I can or can't write software in a country 10 000 miles away?
Re:FUD? (Score:2, Interesting)
But in software, all that happens is those that can afford to hold patents use them as a weapon against those that can't.
Nobody died and made software god. Big evil companies have been using Patents as Weapons for over a hundred years. Sam Colt got a patent for his revolver and used it to kill his competitors for years until the patent expired. This was despite the fact that revovlers were nothing new and what he patented has existed since the 16'th century. I think that is called prior art! There was also the famous case of Ford vs. Selden another example of people generalizing a patent and using it to pulverize the competition. Seldens claim was eventually thrown out of court and the Patent system matured. So welcome to the real world. Software patents will happen because there is a good reason for them and the Software patenting system will eventually stabilize and if it does not there are the courts.
What gives them the right to tell me whether I can or can't write software in a country 10 000 miles away?
Because they got to the patent office before you did. The road to faliure is littered with brave souls that thought of it first but got to the patent office second. Big evil corporations or any one else holding a patent can tell you not to write software, say a GIF editing utility because they (In this case Unisys) sunk money into developing GIF, they patented it or key components of it and they have a right to demand license payments of anyone who uses their patented technology. It sucks ass but that is the way the world works, people play hardball, and the real world just arrived in Software-land.
Re:FUD? (Score:2)
On the contrary, that is the exact reason why the patent system should be seriously overhauled. Not abolished - I didn't say that anywhere - but at least given a big shakeup. The original intent of the patent system was to promote the common good . Part of this means providing a limited time protection to the inventor after which the invention may be freely used by anyone. I don't see any common good in the current patent situation.
Nobody died and made software god. Big evil companies have been using Patents as Weapons for over a hundred years. Sam Colt got a patent for his revolver and used it to kill his competitors for years until the patent expired.
Hello? Anyone at home? Software is not the same as hardware It is stupid to apply the same rules to it as to a manufacturing-based process which churns out physical objects.
will happen because there is a good reason for them and the Software patenting system will eventually stabilize and if it does not there are the courts.
You're slightly misinformed. The US Government asked the software industry about twenty years ago whether software patents were a good idea. For a number of very good reasons they said no, they weren't. 17 years is a ridiculous period of time in software land, software value depends on availability - not scarcity (unlike physical inventions) and a patent system would impose costs on development - like any regulation does. The Feds didn't listen and software became patentable shortly after that.
What gives them the right to tell me whether I can or can't write software in a country 10 000 miles away?
Because they got to the patent office before you did.
Um, that's not a reason. Luckily I live in a different country with its own - rather robust - Constitution which ensures that the profits of a company in another country do not infringe my rights to write software in any way.
It sucks ass but that is the way the world works, people play hardball, and the real world just arrived in Software-land.
/s/Real World/American View of The Real World/g
Plenty of countries think that America's patent system is the thing that sucks ass and thus ignore it. Ironically, the US itself had this attitude when it was once a young nation - foreign patents and copyrights were ignored - because the common good of the nation was at stake. Nothing like telling a large foreign power where to shove it when you're just starting out. Oh, wait...
Re:FUD? (Score:2)
What, exactly, is the "good reason" for software patents? Maybe we should have "newspaper patents" next. Charles Krauthammer can patent illegible, right-wing rants and Molly Ivans can patent snide anti-Bush comments ;) Book patents? The estate of J.R.R. Tolkien can sue J.K. Rawlings for infringement on their "wizard with white beard patent". Billboard patents. Apple can sue anyone who puts the Dali Lama on a billboard (except in China ;).
Software should be protected the same as any other creative work (via copyright) since software IS a creative work. You'll notice that the defender's of software patents always use examples from the physical world -- cars, guns, cogwheels, etc. -- to defend their point of view. It's as if they look at the shrink-wrapped box on the shelves of the computer store and think THAT is what software is. They are wrong. Software is the thoughts, talent, and creativity of it's creator building upon the thoughts, talents, and creativity of a hundred-thousand predecessors.
Re:FUD? (Score:3, Informative)
A patent is valid at most 20 years from the time being filed in the first place (1992 + 20 years). A renewal fee is required every year.
Re:FUD? (Score:2, Interesting)
The patent has not recovered the outlay in developing the technology
Extension to 17 years (the maximum) would recover the outlay.
Society would benefit form the patent being profitable
Generally, patents are only extended where the government has held up the patent for its own benefit, or, for example, with a drug which took ten years of development/trial before the government granted a licence.
Which means the patent may be valid in the US, but expire in the EC, see my previous comment about patents respecting national boundaries, and the rest of the world not being required to respect US law.
Unless subjected to a rain of cruise missiles.
Prior art? Yeah, here's some prior art. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Prior art? Yeah, here's some prior art. (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the Porter/Duff paper is the last word on compositing.
jeff
Re:Prior art? Yeah, here's some prior art. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, Alvy Ray Smith with Ed Catmull created an alpha compositing system in 1978 while Ed Catmull was doing a paper for SIGGRAPH '78.
He states this in his paper "Alpha and the History of Digital Compositing" in August 1995.
He says that his earliest dated documentation he has for that code is dated January 13, 1978. He specifically showed compositing an alpha image on a background which should just be like another image. I hope this helps
Great! So now what? (Score:3, Interesting)
Big corporartions won't challenge a patent in court because there's a huge financial disincentive to do it. They could spend years in court and blow tons of money and still possibly lose. On the other hand, the patent holder will license the patent to them for a less exhorbitant sum. If Adobe had to pay to license PNG from Apple, they'd just pay the fee and pass the extra cost directly to the consumer and not bat an eye.
The people who have the most to gain from challenging patents are small ISV's because they can hardly afford to be dumping limited resources into royalties. That problem is made even more complicated when you are talking about open source development. Of course they can neither afford royalty payments nor the court costs and time necessary to fight the patent. If a patent is going to expire in 4 or 5 years, why bother fighting because by the time you get through the courts it won't matter anymore.
The end result of this is that innovation by small software vendors and open source developers is totally crippled by patents. Whether a patent is for a legitimate innovation or not is irrelevant to these groups because as soon as it gets approved and somebody demonstrates a willingness to enforce it, it becomes off limits to these groups.
Re:Prior art? Yeah, here's some prior art. (Score:2)
The irony. :P
Obvious and WAY older than 1992 (Score:5, Informative)
Every program that combines images and works with true color uses this. It is impossible not to, the algorithim is totally obvious. True color images (ie where the numbers represent levels of red, green, blue, rather than be indexes into a color pallette) were in common use in advanced visualization and simulations in 1980, such as Evans & Sutherland flight simulators. I also saw photo touch-up software that could duplicate a portion of the image and put it somewhere else in 1979, and I believe it must have used this, as otherwise the edges of the cut piece would be visible.
PORT84, Porter, T., and T.Duff, "Compositing Digital Images," SIGGRAPH 84, 253-259.
This is the paper most-often cited, however I think it's main addition is the enumeration of compositing operators and the introduction of "premultiplied" images. Before that I believe non-premultiplied was used as that was the more obvious solution. Also PNG does not use premulitplication.
Even if Apple is going to be a pita about this, it does not affect PNG, as the file format itself does not do any compositing, it just stores a 4th "color" called the alpha. So I would not worry about it there. However Photoshop and Gimp and the in-house program I write for Digital Domain uses this, and about six thousand other pieces of commercial and free software.
Re:Obvious and WAY older than 1992 (Score:4, Informative)
PNG isn't just a file format. It's an encoding and decoding mechanism. The encoding and decoding treat the alpha channel as an alpha channel, not a 'fourth color'.
Re:Obvious and WAY older than 1992 (Score:3, Insightful)
If no one implemented alpha channels in PNG, it would not be an issue, even though PNG is capable of storing them, and it would look bad. Several other formats implement alpha channels, and so this does not apply to them directly either, only to the mechanisms which use it to do *compositing*.
Re:Obvious and WAY older than 1992 (Score:2)
So I don't think the PNG library authors are in any danger of breaking this patent. But if it's illegal for other programmers to then use the alpha transparency in their applications, it hurts the PNG group too.
Re:Obvious and WAY older than 1992 (Score:2)
give a DAMN about prior art! Free software
development is going to be slowly strangled to
death by software patents over the next 10 years.
No patents on software! They don't work, they
are supposed to encourage innovation but they
just turn it into a legal quagmire. It's not like
people are going to stop inventing new algorithms
just because they can't get a patent on them. It's
like saying nobody would invent new scientific theories if there was no nobel prize.
Probably just a defensive patent (Score:2)
However, unless anyone has any evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume that Apple only filed this as a defensive patent, and never intends to sue anyone because they make use of this idea.
GIF? (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm also pretty sure (but can't find evidence) that SGI's "Haeberli" image format dates back to the late 1980's - that format has a full alpha channel.
I certainly designed hardware that would render textured polygons composited by alpha blends back in the late 1980's. I have screen shots taken from that system. [sjbaker.org]
(Notice the alpha textured trees in the righthand image - those are 'composited via a mask').
Earlier than that, the Quantel Paintbox (used in TV studio's to produce 2D artwork) had some kind of alpha-based compositing feature.
This patent would have had to be filed in about 1978 to have avoided all prior art - and even then, it would have been considered 'trivial' IMHO.
Outdated, irrelevant facts w/o more info (Score:5, Interesting)
Who honestly believes Apple would try to milk this almost certainly invalid patent? What do they gain by going after PNG? I think everyone will agree that web standards help Apple, and they are not going to do something against their best interest.
And what is up with /. posting stories about months-old facts with no new developments anyways? I think it is good for /. to bring this issue up and get Apple to clarify their position, but listen to the report: "APPLE has declared in their patent statement to the Scalable Vector Graphics Working Group that their patent is only available for RAND Licensing." They make it sound like it just happened! And while I'm complaining, why is "Apple" in all caps ;)
Re:Outdated, irrelevant facts w/o more info (Score:5, Funny)
The only thing missing is the Linux reference.
Re:Outdated, irrelevant facts w/o more info (Score:2)
How nice if Apple stopped pestering the SVG group about it for some strategic reason (most likely that their patent portfolio is smaller than that of other companies, so they would lose under RAND). But that doesn't really address the more basic issues.
Has Apple dedicated the patent to the public domain? What posessed them to assert rights in this patent to the SVG group a few months ago in the first place? Why did the "inventors" apply for a patent on a textbook technique in 1992, decades after the technique was invented?
This isn't irrelevant--it still tells us lots about Apple's attitude towards intellectual property.
Actually, it IS a Web standard. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Outdated, irrelevant facts w/o more info (Score:2, Informative)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-patentpol
standard textbook technique (Score:3, Informative)
I think this leaves only two possible conclusions: either Apple's legal staff and the inventors, Konstantin Othmer and Bruce Leak, are completely incompetent, or the inventors deliberately tried to patent a technique they knew to be in wide use and Apple's legal staff is deliberately trying to enforce an invalid patent. Apple didn't even have the smarts to offer this patent for "royalty free" licensing to SVG.
Forget about any of Apple's claims of openness: this is such a clear case of patent abuse that it can't be an accident or mistake. The open source community would do well to stonewall Apple: don't incorporate OSX-related patches into open source projects, don't port to their hardware, and don't buy their products.
Re:standard textbook technique (Score:3, Informative)
The technique doesn't date back to the 1960s. Alvy Ray Smith, who claims the technique's co-invention with Ed Catmull (who were both working at Lucasfilm at the time), says the earliest date on his alpha channel code is January 1978, but the technique was probably actually invented the previous December. (He has good reason for saying this, BTW. Final copy for Ed Catmull's 1978 SIGGRAPH paper was due in January, and the code in question was used to produce some of the figures.)
Still well before 1992, of course.
Re:standard textbook technique (Score:2)
Is Apple being unreasonable? (Score:2, Interesting)
Holding a patent is one thing, vigorously going after people who use the patented technology is another. I'm not up on my legalese but I do see that Apple provides a RAND (Reasonable And Non-Discriminatory terms) license for the use of the technology. I'm not sure what the implications are, but it does look as if Apple is making an attempt to accommodate the SVG 1.0 patent.
If people think that Apple's terms, or the terms of any of the 11 other patent holders involved, are too strict then I'd say your best bet is to write a nice letter to Apple explaining why you think so. Apple holds a lot of patents and, from what I've seen so far, are fairly reasonable about opening them up. Of course they still want to hold on to their intellectual property, but they have opened up patents in the past for reasonable use.
Re:Is Apple being unreasonable? (Score:2)
But it isn't their intellectual property: they applied for a patent on a 20 year old textbook technique. Apple is doing the equivalent of just taking land that belongs to the public. Letting a few pedestrians through every now and then doesn't make that "reasonable".
There is only one reasonable thing to do for Apple: dedicate the patent to the public domain as quickly as possible.
Obligatory link to the patent in question (Score:5, Informative)
CLick the "Image" button to see the lovely diagrams. There are a few items this patent does NOT cover, as explicitely mentioned in the text. This patent does not cover additional channel information, like alpha channels. It only covers a seperate, full color, mask image that is used to mask off the source image.
I have a few questions:
If the patent does not cover greyscale images, then not all sanity is lost!
-B
Prior Art (Score:5, Informative)
We find on page 222 the pseudocode for the WriteColor procedure:
procedure WriteColor(var ColorRaster: raster; x, y: integer);
var i, j: integer;
begin
for j
for i
if GetPixel(ColorRaster, i, j) <> transparent then
SetPixel(FrameBuffer, x+i, y+j, GetPixel(ColorRaster, i, j))
end;
And there was a First Edition published in 1973, for all I know it's in there too.
BTW, there isn't anything Bill Atkinson did for Apple in QuickDraw that isn't spelled out in this book.
Re:Prior Art (Score:3, Informative)
Ummmm, the algorithm that Apple patented is more complicated than that WriteColor procedure. WriteColor draws an image with _one_ level of transparency - i.e. each pixel is either completely transparent or completely opaque. Apple's algorithm is for how to draw an image where each pixel can be partially transparent - anywhere from 0 (totally transparent) to 255 (totally opaque).
That's not to say that Apple's algorithm isn't completely obvious - and I'm sure there's prior art out there, but you'll have to look a little harder.
BTW, there isn't anything Bill Atkinson did for Apple in QuickDraw that isn't spelled out in this book.
How about making it really fast??? I'm still incredibly impressed with the amount of graphics power they got out of that original 8 MHz computer. Did you realize that even back in 1984, the Mac screen had rounded corners - and any drawing that took place on the screen was automatically clipped to those rounded corners? That's not exactly trivial to implement without a significant performance penalty.
Re:Prior Art (Score:2, Informative)
Ummmm, no. There are essentially two algorithms that Apple has patented here. The pseudocode given above applies to the first. RTFP.
How about making it really fast???
Get the book. It's called "Principles of Interactive Computer Graphics." It's published by McGraw-Hill. It tells you how to do this. Basically, Apple rechristened the rasterized-masking system talked about in the book as something called a Region (esp. RgnHandle.) It's really nothing more than a run-length-encoded bit mask.
It lets you draw things with rounded corners really fast.
Alvy Ray Smith (Score:3, Informative)
The definitive reference on the history of alpha is Alvy Ray Smith's technical memo [alvyray.com] from 1995. It seems pretty clear that he co-invented the technique with Ed Catmull as a solution to a problem that Catmull was having with his sub-pixel hidden surface algorithm.
The earliest dated documentation on his alpha channel code is January 13, 1978, although it was probably written the previous December. See footnote 4, page 6 of the memo for details.
No big deal (Score:2)
So what, really? PNG was supposed to replace GIF because (Unisys?) was going to uphold patents on GIF, but... never happened because it all blew over.
Has anyone even seen a PNG file online? I think I ran across a grand total of 1. Of course there could have been inline graphics that I didn't notice, but really?
And IF Apple tried to enforce this, and PNG was widely used, what would they do? Get on Google and start at website 1 and go through 2,000,000 sequentially?
Methinks that someone is blowing this out of proportion while misreading in the first place.
Re:No big deal (Score:2)
The web-stats package I use generates PNG as its output.
Maybe you've heard of it: the webalizer.
PNG is definitely out there; I would think of it as the third format behind GIF/JPEG.
Unisys is evil (Score:2)
And, Unisys is bullying. You know, I thought I'd convert some of my PNGs to GIFs before people started complaining. But they went after the people writing convert, so I couldn't. But nobody has complained, so I don't care about GIFs.
Re:No big deal (Score:2)
"Has anyone even seen a PNG file online? I think I ran across a grand total of 1. Of course there could have been inline graphics that I didn't notice, but really?"
Well, every image on our site is PNG (a couple of JPEGs, but whatever). We haven't, done't, and won't use GIF for the obvious reasons. I somehow doubt we're the only site using PGN graphics; you must not be online very much...
Apple's 10-K (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm an Apple shareholder, and one fine day on the shitter I was reading their 10-K (annual SEC filing), and noticed this interesting quote on page 6 [ccbn.com], under "PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, COPYRIGHTS AND LICENSES":
I thought that was an interesting thing to write, I wonder what, say, Amazon or Microsoft say in their filings about patents?
If anything comes of this patent (I doubt anything will, despite the sensationalist /. headline), you can use that in your letters to Apple or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple/NeXT compositing code. (Score:2)
They didn't inherit it in 1992, the filing date of the patent :)
Commodore 64 sprites (Score:2, Informative)
This is why... (Score:2)
Now this is just silly (Score:5, Informative)
1) This is obvious.
2) There is prior art.
So even if Apple decided to try and enforce it, it'd get shot down however:
3) Apple has already allowed royalty free use of this patent.
Seriously folks, this story is just silly. Think for a moment how many things out there use multi level alpha transparency. All 3d cards from the Voodoo on do, Windows does in movie file formats and in the UI in XP, a bunch of X WMs do. If Apple tried to enforce this they'd have legal teams from all over after them, fact aside that they've already said they won't.
Just because a company has a stupid patent doesn't mean they will try and enforce it.
Requirements of prior art (Score:3, Insightful)
7. A method as in claim 1 wherein said method produces anti-aliased text in said destination image by performing the method with the
source image being a pattern and the mask image being anti-aliased text.
(Claim 1 is the basic alpha-transparency concept).
Suppose that someone comes up with prior art that invalidates claim 1. Apple can still claim rights over the use of this technique for anti-aliased text unless someone can show prior art which covers that specific application. So don't just look for prior descriptions of alpha-transparency: look for prior use of alpha transparency for text, and anything else in the claims.
Paul.
Another "funny" Apple patent, #6,317,787 (Score:2, Funny)
System and method for analyzing web-server log files
A method for analyzing traffic data generated by a plurality of web servers, which host a single web site. The site is mirrored on each server. A traffic data hit is generated responsive to each access of one of the servers. The hit includes data representing the time of the access. Each data hit is stored in a log file on the server accessed. The first-stored data hit is read from each server. Each of the read data hits are compared, and the oldest data hit is passed to a log file analyzer. The next-stored data hit is read from the server from which the passed data hit was read, and a second comparison is performed on the read data hits, with the oldest data hit being passed to the log file analyzer. This process continues until all of the data hits are read, compared, and passed to the log file analyzer. This results in passing all of the data hits to the log file analyzer in the chronological order in which the hits were generated.
Only applies to triple alpha channels (Score:4, Informative)
It seems like an obvious extension of alpha blending (which was around for a while and is referenced in the patent) but that didn't stop Apple. HURR! WE R SMRT!
Re:Only applies to triple alpha channels (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, in the shading language, surface shaders set an output color and opacity, both as RGB. To generate the final image, these are then blended the obvious way, from the Porter and Duff paper that other people have referenced. Here is a link to PDF of the spec [pixar.com], and here is a direct link to information about surface shaders [pixar.com].
Now, the amusing thing about all this is that the prior art here is from Pixar, which of course shares the same CEO as Apple...
-matt
Stencil (Score:2)
How about using a bloody stencil to paint block letters on the side of a stupid truck?
This is so irritating. Some obvious technique gets applied with computers, and all of a sudden some arrogant stuck up company gets a patent on it and starts throwing their weight around to stop open standard development. It makes me sick.
Honestly, the day somebody gets a computer to pick their nose, a company's going to have a patent on it and try to make money off of it.
-Rob
Even if it was an orignal thought (Score:2)
Running around like squirrels looking for prior art whenever the specter of an intellectual monopoly threatens the free and open use of a key technology is missing the real point here.
Re:Founding Fathers on Intellectual Property (Score:2)
This opinion coming from a man that was not only a patriot and intellectual; he was also an inventor.
His rational voice, and that of others that shared his opinion, was not enough to at the time and thus we have article 1, section 8.
Prior Art Collection (Score:2)
In order for the USPTO to start being usefull again, why dont they use the public to gather prior art?
Couldnt a website, shit even slashcode based, be set up that discloses patent applications (which are public-knowledge anyway) in order to allow the public to AID the EXAMINER in collecting prior art? Somewhere in the examination period should a 'peer-review' element be 'created' (or exercised) in this way.
let the public see the patent application (disclose the applicant or not, its kinda irrelevant) and allow "all those reasonably versed in the art" to aid the Examiner. If the applicant disagrees with the examiner, let the APPLICANT take the isssue to court in order to SECURE his patent - dont allow the system to default in building a club to be held over the heads of others.
I am not a supporter of "intellectual-property" in general, I see the free exchange of ideas in an open society of greater value to the community (than allowing ideas to be controlled by profit-seekers), but I digress, I think i might come to terms with the actions of the USPTO if they implemented a system such as this..
It is specifically not alpha blending. (Score:4, Informative)
Alpha blending is directly contrasted to their method in the patent itself. This is no threat to the patent-free status of PNG or MNG.
Apple wishes to cooperate, I think. (Score:2)
Apple claims they wish to work together with the Open Source software community. I believe the PNG format came to be as an alternative to GIF, which is patent-encumbered. Since this was created to help out the Open Source (or Free, if you wish) community, I think Apple should try and work out a reasonable deal with the developers. I don't know what this deal should be. That's up to the parties involved.
On the subject of software patents, I believe they should be allowed, although the patent office should closely scrutinize any such patents (as they should for any patents regardless), making sure that among other things, the invention is not a previously obvious solution to a problem (as originally intended), there is no prior art, and that the patent is extremely specific in its spirit and letter, so that a patent for any given technology will only affect people who are developing that specific technology and nothing else. The idea of patents is a good one. The problem is that the system is broken, and therefore, huge corporations abuse it.
Oh well.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
- They are a company; their business is making money, not being cool (except to the extend that being cool helps business).
- They are publicly traded, so they have a legal obligation to their stockholders to do their best to make money, even at the expense of being cool.
- Making money means pursuing every strategy available to them to its fullest extent, and taking advantage of whatever the law, the world, and circumstance gives them.
- Sometimes this means doing cool things, like open-sourcing the core of their new OS.
- Sometimes the means doing crappy things, like abusing an overinflated body of intellectual property law.
Of course, if they really do put the brakes on PNG (and let's wait to hear all sides of the story), and if that hurts their business (e.g. it hurts their good standing with their customers and developers), they won't do it. So maybe sending them a polite but firm e-mail asking for an explanation isn't a bad idea.Re:Hmmm (Score:2, Funny)
As far as I know, BSD was already open in various incarnations. But the next time I build a proprietary layer above an open source project, I'll hire you for marketing so I can claim I was the one that made the core open source in the first place!
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
A better interpretation of the profit motive would be that Apple has an obligation to pay its employees for their efforts. It can only do this if it continues to operate at least at the break-even point.
Frankly, this sort of patent messiness is just another X in my "con" column when it comes to Apple. And when their major "pro" at this point is "fanless computers", they just don't stack up well against a lot of other manufacturers.
Re:Time for an Apple boycot!? (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple Advertises '1-click' licensing. goes more toward proving amazon.com suckered them than showing evil on their part, and on Apple sues to stop leaks. I emphatically support their action, although you probably didn't get the complete story unless you read some real news on it. Apple tracked down and stopped a leak in their R&D division. He was trying to be harmless, releasing roadmaps and product details to Mac rumor sites, but his actions certainly gave Apple a huge disadvantage and lost them money. All they did was get him to agree to stop, even though they certainly could have won monetary damages. How can you oppose that?
"...a lot of us contribute to Apple. Hint. Stop posting Apple press releases on slashdot. :)" Oh yes, Apple would be davasted if /. stopped doing mostly misinformed and negative reports on their products. "Think different. Indeed!" Interesting since half your complaints had to do with people "Thinking Same." "Apple couldn't build their own OS so they use choose *BSD to gain market share." Apple can't make their own OS, eh? Actually they scrapped years of work to go with the BSD core, and they managed to put an interface on it better by orders of magnitude than anything yet available for an OSS OS, not to bash OSS OSs of course, just saying UI and setup is their big weak point in the desktop world currently. But I'm pretty sure everyone already realizes that "Apple couldn't build their own OS" was a troll.
Selective memory? (Score:3, Informative)
HP, Apple Drop Support for Royalties on Web Standards [slashdot.org]
Don't you think that is HELPFUL?
I personally think it's rather odd they would state they do not support RAND, then say you have to use RAND for this standard... something is wrong here.
Re:Time for an Apple boycot!? (Score:5, Informative)
Also think of the confussion it causes when two products look identical. It should let the opensource community do this and not allow companies to do it? What's the insentive?
As for the one-click thing, please. They debuted one-click, so what. They are using, or at least were, using a technology. Don't pick on their website just 'cause they licensed a technology from another company that has a patent on it. What's cheaper, lisencing or going to court? Pick on Amazon for creating such a stupid patent.
And as for the cube-NDA contract issue, please. Gimme a friggin' break. So what if Apple likes to hide their new products until they are ready to do it the way they want. The employee signed a contract that he won't leak information from Apple. What if a competitor such as Dell caught wind and released something just as cool, but earlier. Great, Apple would get shafted 'cause of some ass employee who can't play nice.
As for the BSD crack you made, they are using opensource software and giving back the modified version, Darwin for free. Don't be an ingrate and say "Well, a patent (mind you invalid) exists, they get people to stop mimicing their interface verbatim, use OSS and recontribute while making their OS even more stable than before, so apple reeks." statement. Maybe we should step all over Apple and hack QuickTime, which uses a kick ass codec and try our best to drive the company into the ground.
You've just spread extreemist FUD about a company protecting its rights. piss me off...
Re:PNG Open Source Masturbation (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Isn't the whole point of patents to make money (Score:3, Insightful)
Ignoring the whole "give away" and "intellectual property" parts of it, I'll point out that they aren't being asked to give away anything. They're being asked to stop trying to take something that doesn't belong to them. The idea was not their's, nor was it or its use exclusive to them. The purpose of patents was to encourage ideas, not direct money to big buisness who can afford to file dozens of supirious patents.
Re:Isn't the whole point of patents to make money (Score:2, Insightful)
Patenting things which are prior art is also detrimental to capitalism, since it increases the risk of lawsuits if not actual damages and limits genuine innovation. *Bogus* patents are antithetical to "making money" in both the short and long term, unless you're a lawyer. They're no different than the mob's "protection" rackets.
How to tell if your neighbor (Score:2, Insightful)
It seems un-American, bordering on the Communist to suggest that Apple should simply give away their intellectual property.
<aside> What the do you mean, exactly, by "un-American" -- "doubleplus ungood"? or is it closer to "un-Italian"?
Were Helen Keller and Jack London un-American because they were socialists? </aside>
Did you ever stop to think that patents are a way for companies to avoid competition? To keep out the little guy?
Many companies have decided that instead of competing on price and quality, they would rather go to the govt. and get an exclusive monopoly to use a certain technology. Because the pace of change in the tech field is so rapid, patents are effectively eternal. And when people criticize this, because they want to see competing products in the marketplace, you call them communists?
Re:Isn't the whole point of patents to make money (Score:2)
I didn't know you guys let Craig Mundie have a Slashdot account!
Besides, I always thought that charity was a virtue that is encouraged by, if nothing else, by the US tax code. Giving away stuff can also encourage the growth of organizations by goodwill and network effects.
Read your own links. (Score:3, Informative)
[snip]
Apple informed the SVG 1.0 Working Group very early in the SVG 1.0 process of the patent they listed in their license statement. The SVG Working Group made a concerted effort to produce a specification that does not require implementors to infringe the patent.
[snip]
Member Name -/-Patent Claim -/- License
Adobe -- None -- Royalty-Free --
Apple -- Patent: US 5379129 -- RAND --
uh, you are aware that this story is about Apple, and not Adobe, right?
Re:Read your own links. (Score:2)
oops.
:-)