From kw@innocent.com Sun, 29 Aug 1999 23:40:31 +0200
Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 23:40:31 +0200
From: Xuan Baldauf kw@innocent.com
Subject: [Patents] Re: [Patents] GIF/LZW in Europe??


Hans Schou wrote:

> "Unisys Enforcing Patents"
> "They're  now threatening to sue even noncommercial websites that carry=

> GIFs for a $5000 license fee, regardless of whether the GIFs were
> generated by licensed software or not."
>
> http://corp2.unisys.com/LeadStory/lzw-license.html
> http://slashdot.org/articles/99/08/29/0722236.shtml
>
> Can anyone tell me if this LZW patent is registred i Europe?
> I mean, if Europe previus didn't accept software patents,
> then can this patent not be relevant in Europe.
>
> Another thing. It is legal for anybody to take a patent and
> build a thing at home for privat use only. In that case
> it should be legal for me to implement LZW and use it
> on my own homepage. So: is it illegal to distribute
> source code which use an algorithme?
> It is sure illegal to sell and distribute binaries but
> the source code is 'just' an example of how to implement it.
>
> The GIF creating library 'gd' has just stopped distributing
> the GIF library because they were threatend to do so. Mostly
> 'gd' was distributed in source code so maybe it is not
> illegal to distribute the source.
>
> We can only get answer by having a trial against UNISYS.
> Should we start funding a trial to get the answer once
> for all?
> If the patent is valid in New Zealand, we could start publish
> 'gd' on a web-server there. To my knowledge, New Zealand should
> have a decent court which should give a fair trial.

I think that it's much more expense for the individual to have trial
than
to make the European Parliament decide to the right direction... And I
do
not get the point what a judgement in New Zealand would have to do with
GIF/LZW in Europe... Maybe I'm just too tired. ;o)

>
>
> The big question is: Is it illegal to distribute source code
> which contains a patented algorithme?

My opinion is that source code is a form of representing a math
algorithm.
The Munich convention states AFAIK that math is not patentable. (If I'm
wrong, we probably should patent the way how two numbers are multiplied
and
sue every school for teaching this ;o))


But I'm wondering something: "They're  now threatening to sue even
noncommercial websites that carry GIFs for a $5000 license fee,
regardless
of whether the GIFs were generated by licensed software or not." GIF
images
which were created by GIF software can be compared with food coming out
of
a food machine. The food machine or parts of it may be patented, but the
food itself is not. In the same way may parts of GIF software be
patented,
the GIF image itself may not. It does not contain any LZW algorithm,
only
it's output or input. Therefore Web-Sites carrying GIF images
(regardless
of being commercial or not) do not have to pay any fee, unless Unisys
can
prove that the webmaster is the same one as the one which hit the "save"
button of a GIF writing software. Let this be done by a brother or
sister
and you have the right to keep silent in a trial. :-)

Any comments?

Xu=E2n Baldauf.




