Truth Behind the ClearType/OpenSUSE FUD

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."

ClearType

[Miguel de Icaza]

I think ClearType is a great idea

Re:

[BlueWomble]

I can't see what all the fuss is about.

Maybe it's just me but I've turned cleartype on in both Linux (a couple of distros) and Windows and I can't say I like the results.

I find font rendering in Linux more visually pleasing than that in Windows XP and I turn off the sub-pixel smoothing in Linux because text looks better without it.

Re:

[LuYu]

I have to second that. For some reason I regularly forget this. Then I start using someone else's Windows computer, and I suddenly realize how nice my own desktop is. This is also one of the places where Fedora truly outshines Knoppix. KDE's transparent menus are nice, but the fonts are so much prettier in Gnome (Yes, I know I am going to get totally flamed for this;).

Re:

[PitaBred]

It depends entirely on your display. On LCD's, especially lower resolution ones, ClearType/font hinting makes things readable, even when scaled way down.

Re:

[BlueWomble]

I wasn't saying not to use font hinting I was saying that sub-pixel hinting has in my experience (with a variety of LCD displays) proven to be fairly ineffective.

Re:

[renegadesx]

SJVN (writer of this article) often bitches about people making fusses about stuff that doesn't matter, and fair enough, its petty and stupid.

What a novel idea

[dattaway]

To come up with an idea, prevent others from working on it, and to claim all work in the area as their own property. And make claims of future work as well: "more patents to come." Sounds like pirating to me. Microsoft is raping and pillaging the software community.

They didn't invent clear type, Steve Wozniak did

[Anonymous Coward]

Well except the sub pixel anti-aliasing they claim as their invention was invented by Steve Wozniak a couple of decades earlier.

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:They didn't invent clear type, Steve Wozniak di

[Kadin2048]

Well except the sub pixel anti-aliasing they claim as their invention was invented by Steve Wozniak a couple of decades earlier.

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.

Re:

[u8i9o0]

Microsoft is raping and pillaging the software community.

You must be new here.

Oh, wait. dattaway (3088)?

/me head explodes

:)

Re:

[cyphercell]

I like Suse and Novell does a lot for open source, I hope they come through this arrangement ok, but I'm switched to Debian.

Changed Before the Microvell Deal

[10scjed]

This change was last summer, pre-microvell, so the news actually would have been if OpenSUSE was enabling it and taking advantage of MS' patent covenant for Novell customers and OpenSUSE contributors while other distros couldn't.

MS' plan to fragment the community is only effective if Novell has customers and developers supporting them, otherwise the covenant is irrelevant. Boycott Novell, the rest takes care of itself.

Re:Changed Before the Microvell Deal

[rudegeek]

if Novell has customers and developers supporting them

You reap what you sow. Novell exposed themself to any FUD by going to bed with MS. Now everything they do (whatever it will be FOSS friendly or commercial) will be taken into MS deal context. It will just get harder and harder to wash off mud thrown by others.

Not that I think FUD is a weapon FOSS supporters should use. But a bit of paranoia is healthy. :-P

Re:

[deepestblue]

First you say FUD is natural and to be expected. OK. Then you actually say it's healthy? Whatever happened to passing informed judgement?

Re:

[rudegeek]

I wasn't clear, then. My point was: yes, there will be FUD. No, we shouldn't participate. Yes, we should be careful and learn from history.

Whatever happened to passing informed judgement?

C'mon, give a non-native-speaker a break. ;-)

Re:Changed Before the Microvell Deal

[kripkenstein]

This change was last summer, pre-microvell, so the news actually would have been if OpenSUSE was enabling it and taking advantage of MS' patent covenant for Novell customers and OpenSUSE contributors while other distros couldn't.

Yes. I submitted the previous story about this matter, and I stand corrected. I didn't know everything about the issue; I relied on the sources reporting on it, and mainly, the whole matter seemed suspicious, and I thought posting it to Slashdot would shine some light on it. Not 100% sure if doing so had an influence, but what matters in the end is that things are now clarified.

From my standpoint, the interesting issue that remains is what I mentioned in the little comment at the end of my submission for the previous story: ok, assuming there are MS patents on this technology, isn't Novell licensed to use them now (even if it "isn't a patent license", but it just acts like one)? Apparently the Microsoft-Novell deal doesn't help openSUSE out much with regard to MS patents. Is the same true for SUSE?

Re:

[G Money]

This wasn't a cross patent license between them, just an agreement not to sue each others customers. They can still sue the hell out of each other for patent infringement. Both Novell and Microsoft have large patent portfolios so it's a bit like the cold war where either side could drop a patent litigation bomb on the other but they both have a huge arsenal to counterattack with. The agreement they made was more of a form of detentes than anything else. Novell can't use any of Microsoft's patents and Mi

Re:

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Your two statements seem to contradict each other. If Novell doesn't embed technologies covered by MS patents, then there isn't any real reason to boycott them. MS' plan only works if Novell does embed those technologies.

Re:

[samkass]

MS' plan to fragment the community

I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I call shennanigans... the "community" is going to fragment itself more with GPLv3 than anything Microsoft could have dreamed of. (Maybe Microsoft has been subliminally encouraging Stallman to push GPLv3 in his sleep?) If fragmentation is your worry, open source seems to encourage it anyway.

Re:This hurts my head

[10scjed]

According to Microsoft's attorney, software patents are invalid in the US as well [patentlyo.com]:

MR. OLSON [For Microsoft]: The '580 patent is a program, as I understand it, that's married to a computer, has to be married to a computer in order to be patented.
JUSTICE SCALIA: You can't patent, you know, on-off, on-off code in the abstract, can you? MR. OLSON: That's correct, Justice Scalia.
JUSTICE SCALIA: There needs to be a device.
MR. OLSON: An idea or a principle, two plus two equals four can't be patented. It has to be put together with a machine and made into a usable device.

Re: This hurts my head

[Dolda2000]

Can it not be argued, then, that program authors cannot be sued for patent infringement? They only write programs "in the abstract", they don't combine it with any device, neither explicitly nor implicitly. That's done by the end user at the time of running the program. Of course, as such, such an argument wouldn't protect the end user, but is a programmer really vulnerable to software patents?

Re:

[dsanfte]

Only if it's assumed (and legally able to be assumed) that they've compiled and run the program in the course of developing it.

Re:

[TheLink]

Given that Microsoft has agreed not to sue Novell's customers over patent infringements then Novell just needs to have customers that do the compiling and testing of software for Novell.

Basically the coders just write code without testing and then check it in, and the customers download, compile (if necessary) and test it.

Heck, something like this already happens in many software companies around the world ;).

Re:

[w128jad]

MR. OLSON [For Microsoft]: The '580 patent is a program, as I understand it, that's married to a computer, has to be married to a computer in order to be patented. JUSTICE SCALIA: You can't patent, you know, on-off, on-off code in the abstract, can you? MR. OLSON: That's correct, Justice Scalia. JUSTICE SCALIA: There needs to be a device. MR. OLSON: An idea or a principle, two plus two equals four can't be patented. It has to be put together with a machine and made into a usable device.

Can it not be argue

Re:

[chris macura]

You can't sue an end user for patent infringement because they're not selling it or making a profit off of it. And if they are selling it, they're no longer the end user.

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:

[chris macura]

According to Wikipedia you're correct. Patents officially suck.

Software patents at devices.

[leuk_he]

Unless you call the lcd monitor a device.... however looking at


Methods and systems for hinting fonts

A system for providing a hinted TrueType font comprising: one or more computer-readable media; one or more processors; computer-readable instructions on the one or more computer-readable media which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement a method comprising


They work arround it by nameing the computer processor as a device.... Not sure if this is really vali

Re:

[leuk_he]

huh.. my link disappeared...? and i cannot edit the comments i "own" :-1

no i have to reply to myself...
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/7095411-claims.h tml [patentstorm.us]

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

You really should re-read the quotes from MS lawyers. What they say exactly follows the legal precedent of software patents. You cannot patent software without including the machine. They clearly state you patent the combination of the software and the computer on which it runs. Read any software patent and you will see it talks about "a device" or "a computer system" in the claims. The computer does something that has been deemed patentable by law. The software makes the machine patentable. I think

Re:

[F-3582]

The problem isn't sub-pixel rendering in general (if it was, any anti-aliasing feature would be covered by these patents). ClearType [wikipedia.org] is taking avantake of the way of drawing pixels LCDs use (red, green, blue standing next to each other instead of being mixed together) to increase anti-aliasing even further. This technology is LCD-specific and patented by Microsoft.

Re:

[F-3582]

I believe, it only works on CRTs, if you pump up the resolution to the technical maximum. When I tried ClearType on a CRT (in 1024*768) a few years ago, it looked like crap.

Re:

[bberens]

That doesn't mean the feature didn't work. It just means the feature wasn't beneficial at that resolution. In other words, "It's not a bug, it's a feature!" =)

Re:

[juiceCake]

ClearType works wonderfully on my LCDs, much better with it enable than without it enabled. Worked wonderfully on my CRTs, when I used them, as well. Others report different results. Results, therefore, may vary.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[bjourne]

Mod parent up! That is exactly right and the full scope can be found on Steve Gibson's ClearType pages [grc.com]. What they have patented is simple filtering of sub-pixel rendering. That is just a simple combination of two very old techniques, color filtering is used in everything from blur filters to fire effects to texture mapping. Sub-pixel rendering too, has been used for ages to increase the apparent screen resolution.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

It's interesting because the patent combines 2 existing techniques to increase apparent resolution on a hardware display. I'd argue firstly that it isn't novel, the only reason MS were able to get this patent is because early LCD costs were prohibitively expensive. That prevented the wider hacker community from "inventing" (sic) this first.

Secondly, it's a patent on pure software, simply optimizing output for a specific display type.

Not everything is a conspiracy

[Billosaur]

However, Lowry continued, "In this specific case, the ClearType font is supplied as part of the freetype2 package; last summer the upstream maintainer changed the package's default settings to disable Clear Type and thereby avoid possibly relevant Microsoft patents. So, consistent with Novell's preexisting practices and current policy, Novell is using the default settings established by the upstream maintainer. Distributions such as Fedora made the same choice. This issue only came up in the summer of 2006 and therefore older distributions are using the previous default (enabled ClearType)."

So it would seem that the disabling of FreeType is more coincident than anything else. It's possible for parallel processes to affect the same thing but have no overt connection.

One good invention in the past decade

[michaelmalak]

Microsoft has come up with some outstanding products and inventions over the years:

1. 1991: Word for Windows 2.0
2. 1992: Excel 4.0
3. 1993: Visual Basic 3.0
4. 1996: Windows NT 4.0
5. 2001: ClearType

Notice any clustering of the dates? With hundreds of billions in revenue, all they can produce in over a decade is ClearType? Let them have it -- we'll live with seeing our font pixels.

Microsoft didn't invent this idea.

[ACMENEWSLLC]

Microsoft may have a patent on ClearType, but they didn't invent it. We did the same thing in the Commodore 64 days with regards to fonts in graphics. I clearly recall zooming in on text and seeing different colors in the transition from text to background. I've spent many hundred hours doing graphic arts on the Commodore 64 and have been published.

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:

[Anonymous Coward]

There's more to sub-pixel font rendering than just manipulating individual color values to add detail. An image processing filter is involved (just read the GRC article for an example of one), which may be patentable, even if the basic idea is not.

Microsoft's ClearType seems to combine the old Truetype bytecode hinting instructions with sub-pixel detail, filtering the results to remove color fringing. IMHO this results in the most readable text I've ever seen on a computer monitor.
YMMV.

Re:

[mstahl]

You were seeing the phosphors on a CRT. Totally different animal.

Re:

[davevr]

I guess prior art doesn't apply to patents anymore?

If you would bother to read the patents, you would see that the techniques that Microsoft is patenting here have ZERO to do with the color-clock splitting that we had on the old Atari and Apple machines back in the day.

And as far as your app - boy, what we can say here. You read an article about something, implement a bad version of it, and then claim that counts as an "independent invention"?

Wow...

Re:

[ACMENEWSLLC]

>>Picture elements on an LCD screen are actually comprised of individual horizontally-oriented red, green and blue sub-pixels. For instance, an LCD screen that has a display resolution of 800x600 pixels actually has 2400x600 individual sub-pixels. The human eye is not capable of differentiating colors on such a small scale, so a combination of these three primary colors can emulate any intermediate color. Sub-pixel font rendering takes advantage of this by antialiasing at the sub-pixel level instead o

Re:

[Achromatic1978]

PS: Cleartype sucks. It never works right on my PC.

Google for a ClearType tweak tool.

Re:Wonderful Practice

[lilomar]

Since when is disagreeing with a companies business decisions not a good reason to stop using their products? That's kinda the only way for the public at large to keep corporations even remotely close to ethical (not that it always works). You may not agree that Novell has done anything worth boycotting them for, but isn't that up to their customers (in this case Linux users) to decide? You make your choice, and even try to make others see it your way, but don't knock the system. It may not be perfect, but it's all we got.

Re:

[LWATCDR]

"You may not agree that Novell has done anything worth boycotting them for, but isn't that up to their customers (in this case Linux users) to decide?"
Customers yes. Linux user no. The people that download OpenSuse are not Novell customers.

But shouldn't people also think before speak or in this case post.
All the flames at Novell over FreeType was total FUD worthy of Microsoft at it's worst.
This was a case of way to many idiots thinking they had all the answer but where totally full of pre-compost.
Anyone tha

Re:

[rudegeek]

You aren't making any sort of choice based on the merits of the system

You see, I consider technological partners of my vendor to have merit while selecting an OS. If the partner is well known of thier abusive bahavior and I'll invest time/hard-cold-cash into OS that can be somehow "pushed-around", I'll consider it as a bad thing.

Imagine this: I run a company that has 10 servers running OS developed by Company X who partners with Company Z. I run a Open Source implementation of, let say, Exchange. It's c

Re:

[Mateo_LeFou]

"You aren't making any sort of choice based on the merits of the system, just on politics and the fact that you dislike microsoft"

I feel that purchasing *anything is inherently political. You could go mad with guilt hunting down all the ramifications of every purchase you make, so you pick your boycotts carefully. But software purchases are especially political because the very fact that code is treated as a *product results from the government-granted monopoly we call copyright.

Thought experiment: if Apple

Re:Wonderful Practice

[jeevesbond]

This all shows the wonderful practice of choosing systems based on gut reactions and petty politics.

Petty politics or genuine concern that Microsoft and Novell are preparing to give the FLOSS community a good shafting? It's all in the semantics.

If you switched, or spend appreciable time bashing or advocating a boycott of SuSE because of the Novell/MS deal, you are a moron. I'm sorry. You aren't making any sort of choice based on the merits of the system, just on politics and the fact that you dislike microsoft. The agreement is harmless to "the community." It's an indemnity agreement! That's about the most benign thing two companies could possibly sign.

No. That agreement is tantamount to Novell saying: 'yes, GNU/Linux does infringe upon Microsoft patents.' It gives Ballmer evidence to extort money [slashdot.org] from GNU/Linux users, will probably be used in future lawsuits by Microsoft and has been the basis of much anti-GNU/Linux FUD.

What is particularly bad for the community is the indemnity stops with the Novell customers, the development community is very much left out in the cold. I'm scared of releasing my code under a FLOSS license because of patent FUD. It might be an indemnity agreement, but it's a thinly veiled threat too.

The bad part is that the reaction (as we saw here, sometimes humorously disinformed) is unfairly hurting a valid (some would say good) choice in the linux market (choice is good!)

You speak of choice, yet the Microsoft/Novell deal has taken customers away from other distros [infoworld.com] (for all the wrong reasons). The whole point of the deal is to eliminate choice and leave Microsoft with just one competitor to deal with: Novell.

If a company kills babies, I'm not going to buy their products. In fact I'll actively make others aware of their actions, this is not petty, I would consider it my moral duty. As a geek Novell and Microsoft have done something far worse: gone against the spirit (if not the letter) of the GPL. It is therefore my moral duty to boycott their products and advise everyone (who would know what I'm talking about) to do the same.

Re:

[mgiuca]

If a company kills babies, I'm not going to buy their products. In fact I'll actively make others aware of their actions, this is not petty, I would consider it my moral duty. As a geek Novell and Microsoft have done something far worse: gone against the spirit (if not the letter) of the GPL.

While I fully agree with your sentiment, I think comparing GPL violations to killing babies is a bit harsh ;)

(Perhaps this is some of that British humour you were talking about)...

Re:

[pinkocommie]

Depends on how you look at it. Microsoft is worth a couple of hundred billion dollars. That money came from somewhere (a market aberration, monopolistic practices etc). Now if that money had been used for other purposes no matter what marginal percentage you take out of it, there will inevitably be babies impacted :).

Re:

[dueyfinster]

If a company kills babies, I'm not going to buy their products. In fact I'll actively make others aware of their actions, this is not petty, I would consider it my moral duty. As a geek Novell and Microsoft have done something far worse: gone against the spirit (if not the letter) of the GPL.

Yes I agree, the GPL is far more precious than babies or even women to geeks!

Re:

[mha]

Mod parent *up*, please!

The problem is not Linux, MS, Novell, etc. - the problem is you, me, US. Since when have knee-jerk reactions ever benefited anyone - long-term, I mean? Isn't using the brain and controlling ones natural pre-human genetically coded urges a beautiful thing? What I mean: Giving in to that first impulse of "kill them!" (or "slap them!", less strong) when you THINK someone else did something wrong (cut you off in traffic, stole your girlfriend, etc.) is natural, sure.

However, question is,

Re:

[PitaBred]

Most of us also had a knee-jerk reaction against the DMCA. Are you going to consider that on it's merits, too? Just because a reaction is knee-jerk doesn't mean it's wrong.

Re:

[MobyDisk]

Choice is great.

Yes, but making a choice buy ignoring certain information, such as the political decisions of the company you buy from, could shortcut your future.

Imagine if it were simpler: Suppose Company A made a great product but killed babies. And Company B made a mediocre product but saved babies. Which product would you buy? Naturally, life isn't that simple. But you can't just ignore the behavior of a company when buying their products. Every dollar you spend is a vote that money should go toward that organiz

Re:

[ak3ldama]

Microsoft has even openly stated that this deal is because Novell knows of such infringement. And Novell denying it is obviously a lie since there is no other reason for them to go into the deal. Novell is playing politics with someone else's intellectual property and that stinks.
Well put, please mod parent up.

I switched for another reason...

[mattgreen]

Easy mod points on slashdot. I need to feel like I fit in, so I do whatever the consensus is. Don't hate me because I conform!

Re:ClearType draws from Apple II, says developer

[Tim Browse]

Technologist Steve Gibson, a software developer and consultant whose claim to fame was inventing the light pen more than a decade ago

From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

The first light pen was used around 1957 on the Lincoln TX-0 computer at the MIT Lincoln Laboratory.

Gibson was born in 1955 [wikipedia.org]. That's some fast work!

Re:

[JavaBear]

Gibson have a "Who Did It First?" text regarding sub-pixel rendering as well:

http://www.grc.com/ctwho.htm [grc.com]

I got ya patent *right here*

[mtec]

Ballmer asked his lawyers for a patent on his peener
The prototype was quarter scale and looked like a pipe cleaner
Prior art be damned! He told the counsels - get to working!
I can prove it's novel just by bellowing and jerking!

Re:

[organgtool]

There's a mental image I never needed - thanks for squirting that video into my head!

What file are those comments in?

[jimstapleton]

I did a 'less * | grep ClearType' in several of the directories in the FreeType source tree, and could not find the mentioned files.

Anyone know where they are at?

Re:

[cab15625]

Try running

egrep -ri "cleartype" * | less -S

from the top of the source tree. I only have the source for 2.1.10 handy right now and it just shows up in the ChangeLog.

Re:

[jimstapleton]

Thanks, I have 2.2.1 and I got:

freetype2 > egrep -ri "cleartype" * | less -S
work/freetype-2.2.1/ChangeLog.20: `ClearType-like' rendering.

so, it doesn't appear to be there either.

Re:

[jimstapleton]

RTFA and my comment, so that you can understand why I searched for that and why your comment is irrelevant in regards to mine.

Thank you, and have a nice day.

SuSE Bashing aside, this affects MANY distros

[GroundBounce]

First off, despite the popularity of bashing SuSE these days, most or all "purist" linux distros do the same thing, this is not just a Novell/SuSE issue. By "purist", I am referring to distros which try to stay as close to 100% open source and patent-infringment-free as possible. Fedora is the prime example of such a distro, even more so than SuSE. On whole, fedora is even more conservative than SuSE, and also has Freetype compiled in its non-patent-infringing way, yet, hypocritically, none of the SuSE bashers are bashing Fedora over this.

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.

Re:

[10scjed]

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.

That's why the new GPLv3 draft now includes a definition of "patent license" to include deals structured in this devious manner:

GPLv3 Draft 3 S.11 [fsf.org] For purposes of the following three paragraphs, a "patent license" means a patent license, a covenant not to brin

Re:

[Brandybuck]

Why has no one remarked on the absurdity of this clause in the GPLv3? It's demanding the enforcement of patents! Next thing you know RMS will be claiming black is white.

If I have a patent, but deliberately choose not to enforce it, and give you a document stating I will not enforce it, the GPL says YOU are the Evil Man. As I've stated before, I can easily understand why Microsoft is on the bad end of the stick here, but I still cannot fathom why Novell is the child of Satan. Microsoft promises not to sue No

Patent Idea

[mainphrame]

Ok, software is just instructions for your computer right?, sort of like a receipe for you computer to "cook". That being the case and the fact that software code (instructions) can be patented. Then I have a very, very good idea. I'm going to patent receipes, I'll start with breads, then everyone will need to get their bread reciepes from me. What do you think?

Re:

[mainphrame]

I'm too late, check this crap out.... http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-b ool.html&r=8&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=bread&OS=b read&RS=bread [uspto.gov] looks like we can use yeast to make bread any more.

Software Patents outside the US

[bug1]

Not all countries recognise software patents, so i assume this patents doesnt apply in all countries.

Why do we force software patents on people who live in non-software patent countries ?

Re:

[novus ordo]

Because then companies in those countries would have a competitive advantage over ones in the patent encumbered ones. That just wouldn't be fair.

Re:

[Wienaren]

Sorry, this is bulls... and one of the most stupid arguments of the pro-patent lobby.

Nobody stops companies to operate in multiple countries.

If company A has patent protection in country A, company B is bound to it in country A. Same vice versa. Hence, both companies have the same chances and possibilities. (Foreign companies can apply for patents in the US, you know)

Also in Country B, where sw-pats are not available, both companies have equal possibilities.

Re:

[chucklinart]

So the right of companies to compete in the global market undoes the rights of sovereign nations to make the laws that suit them? Even if so, the playing field is not made the least bit unlevel by different laws. Companies from non-patent countries would still have to comply with laws in patent countries, and vice-versa.

Re:

[novus ordo]

It's not so simple. Modern manufacturing takes place on multiple continents and is assembled in different countries. Who's to say that making a part of a device that is patented in one country and assembling it in another where the patent doesn't apply is illegal? This is actually one of the premises behind AT&T vs. Microsoft(still to be decided).

Don't forget, in a global economy, you can order directly from overseas where the product will arrive in a brown box, uninspected and unverified against local

Re:

[eMbry00s]

A lot of OSS is developed in the USA, and a lot of open source consumers are in the USA. These often don't want to use software with patent problems due to threat (wether FUD or not) of litigation. Neither should you assume that your country will always be free from software patents (US diplomacy has a long arm.) To ignore a market as large as the US probably doesn't weigh as much as being able to ignore patents.

Re:

[eMbry00s]

No, I am talking adaption by organisations (wether for-profit or not.) No US/UK organisation can use our software if it infringes on patents, because they are too large a target (as opposed to individuals.) If you sell something that infringes on patents, you will be held responsible for it wether it is software or not, so distributions aren't immune either - and quite a few distros are run from the US.

Re:

[jZnat]

Most [English] Linux distributions are based in the US (or in another country where software patents are enforced), so they try to stay clean. If someone made a Linux distro along the mindset of MPlayer (i.e., fuck patents) in a country where software patents don't exist (e.g., eastern Europe for sure, or the EU in general), that could have the potential to be an "ultimate" distribution.

Although, I just recently tried out Ubuntu 7.04 (I typically use Kubuntu or Debian with KDE), and the ease of which you c

OS X's subpixel rendering? Adobe's "CoolType"?

[toby]

It's not as if FreeType and MS' are the only subpixel technologies around; OS X has had it since version 10.3. Microsoft's isn't even particularly good, compared to the others.

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:

[TheMeld]

OSX, CoolType? FAH! The Apple I/II used sub-pixel rendering to display things nicely on a tv screen.

Re:

[ajs318]

Sub-pixel rendering on a tube TV would only work if it was a Trinitron, which have parallel bands of phosphor. Conventional CRTs have dots of phosphor arranged in triangles.

Re:

[TheMeld]

If you know the positioning of each of the three dots, you can still do a certain amount of sub-pixel rendering, just not in quite the same way. Doing some more research, I think this was just on the Apple II, which may well have used a trinitron tube and thus used the same style of subpixel rendering as ClearType/CoolType/etc.

c.f. http://www.grc.com/ctwho.htm [grc.com]

Re:OS X's subpixel rendering? Adobe's "CoolType"?

[TheRaven64]

You can still do sub-pixel AA on a CRT, you just can't use the same algorithm as on an LCD. The trick behind sub-pixel AA is to realise that any adjacent group of red green and blue emitters can be regarded as a pixel, not just those that are exposed as a pixel by the hardware. On an LCD, it's easy because you have a nice regular RGBRGBRGB pattern. You can trea a GBR, BRG or RGB run as a pixel, and just alter the colours for the hardware pixels to turn on the individual emitters as required. For CRTs, it's a little bit more difficult, but it's still possible.

Patent Issues not new for FreeType

[sofla]

Ok, so I'm late to the party, and this might be a little off-topic, but... well, patent issues aren't new for the FreeType devs. They used to (I think its gone now) have an #ifdef for a rendering technique that, like this one, was by default disabled. That particular one (I forget what it covered) infringed on patents held by Apple. It was off by default to keep the default build of the library OSS-friendly. Anyway, to make a long story short, the FT devs did eventually develop a better alternative to A

The Headline is FUD

[LuYu]

While the issue with ClearType is clearly not limited to Novell or SUSE (pick your flavor), that does not mean that Microsuck's patents are not an issue. This is an example of software patents affecting any users with a current distro.

While it turns out that Novell did not enable the functionality in their distro, there is still a possibility that they could enable it and claim that the rest of the Linux userbase could not. There is also the problem of sofware patents which do exist, and the fact tha

The important point here is this

[Master of Transhuman]

The fanatics at FSF who want to destroy Suse in order to promote their "free" (read: we're in charge of what software you're allowed to use) software agenda jumped all over this before any facts were known.

Kudos to Steve for doing what journalists should do - find out the facts and present them clearly.

Re:

[Brandybuck]

Kudos to Steve for doing what journalists should do - find out the facts and present them clearly.

Because of this, he'll never be able to work in the journalism business ever again. Think of his starving children, donate now...