[NTLUG:Discuss] Re: [svlug] EVENT: Burn All GIFs Day.

[Tom Zabel]

Steve Baker wrote:

>
> <snip>

> Seriously:
>
> It seems from their statement that there is nothing wrong with
> COPYING or STORING GIF images since in so doing you are neither
> compressing nor decompressing them.  That seems to me to mean that
> we don't all have to rush out and JPEG-ify all the images on existing
> sites.
>
> I believe that the situation before this announcement was that you
> needed a license to distribute software to generate LZW compressed
> GIF's - but they would waive that requirement for freeware.
>
> It looks like the change they are making is that they now require
> you to purchase a license to use freeware to generate or read GIF's.
> They are trying to make it read like you need to spend the $5k to
> have GIF's on your site - but I don't think that's actually what
> they are saying.
>
> So, I don't think existing web sites with existing GIFs need to
> worry unless the GIF is generated on-the-fly with a CGI program
> or something.
>
> However, I guess there is some need to prove that all the GIF's
> you made were either with licensed software - or were made prior
> to this rule change.
>
> These guys are such low-lifes.  Mass burning of GIF's isn't
> enough.  Everyone should be boycotting their other products and
> services. Put the b*****ds out of business.
>
> There is nothing wrong with defending your patent rights - but
> to let people get away with it for 15 years until it becomes
> a de-facto standard and only *THEN* start to enforce it is
> morally indefensible. If they had relentlessly pursued people
> who violated their patent ten or twelve years ago, I'd have been
> behind their decision...but quietly letting the standard grow
> until the technology is too firmly embedded to remove easily
> and *THEN* slapping everyone with a $5k license fee is completely
> unacceptable.
>
> --
> Steve Baker                  http://web2.airmail.net/sjbaker1
> sjbaker1 at airmail.net (home)  http://www.woodsoup.org/~sbaker
> sjbaker at hti.com      (work)
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

I agree with this EXCEPT that (if we have any attorneys listening in,
please correct this if I'm wrong), that patents need to be defended or
they become void.  If Unisys has allowed the use of a patented product
without requiring any licensing and without doing anything to enforce the
patent for a number of years, wouldn't that essentially vacate the patent
and block a later decision to enforce it?  If they "required" licensing,
but didn't actually do anything to enforce this, wouldn't that lack of
enforcement also vacate the patent?

If the patent has been vacated, what does that do to LZW compression's
status?

Tom Zabel