wwm@pmsmam.uucp (Bill Meahan) (03/01/91)
In article <1804@pdxgate.UUCP> berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren) writes: >paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes: > > > Well... well... well... It's nice to see we're all exercising our legal >rights. I never knew something as ridiculous as this even existed until >X Windows became property of AT&T. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ SAY WHAT?????????? I subscribe to a large number of trade rags and have seen NO mention of this whatsoever. Are you SURE about this or are you just spreading a rumor based on something like buying X for a particular computer model? > Oh well, if anyone ever uses software, we can always sue Sue SUE!!!! > >-unhappy.. > >============================================================================== > Eric Berggren | "The force of the 'Dark Side' eminates from > Computer Science/Eng. | the ominous DeathStar looming overhead." > berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu | - Down with AT&T! - -- Bill Meahan |Product Design & Testing Section Production Test Engineer |Starter Motor Engineering wwm@pmsmam | +1 313 484 9320
burley@albert.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) (03/02/91)
In article <1991Mar1.124740.26026@pmsmam.uucp> wwm@pmsmam.uucp (Bill Meahan) writes: In article <1804@pdxgate.UUCP> berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren) writes: >paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes: > > > Well... well... well... It's nice to see we're all exercising our legal >rights. I never knew something as ridiculous as this even existed until >X Windows became property of AT&T. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ SAY WHAT?????????? I subscribe to a large number of trade rags and have seen NO mention of this whatsoever. Are you SURE about this or are you just spreading a rumor based on something like buying X for a particular computer model? He's exaggerating. AT&T has sent letters to many vendors of X Window implementations saying they must contact AT&T about how to license ($$) use of the backing store mechanism they "invented". A simple description of backing store: if you have two windows on the screen, one partially or fully on top of the other, then you move the top one off the bottom one or close the top one, the window manager must redraw what is "on" the bottom one that you previously couldn't see (it was "occluded"). Many windowing systems simply call on the "owner" (program) of the bottom window to redraw its window -- but backing store means the window manager itself (or, perhaps, the owner of the window) simply saved the pixels that previously were occluded by the top window away in memory somewhere so they may be copied back to the display-memory pixels, saving the time it can (sometimes) take to do the redrawing from data in the owner of the window. X Windows offers backing store as an "option" for windows. The Mac uses backing store for pull-down menus (the bits under the menu are simply saved, so the menus disappear "quickly" instead of leaving a blank space on the screen while the window underneath the menu redraws). Note that backing store isn't useful if the bottom window changes while it is occluded, unless the saved bitmap is changed as well, or discarded. I don't know whether AT&T's patent specifies how updates to occluded portions of a window are handled, and it doesn't really matter to this discussion. Backing store wasn't usually implemented for windowing systems because there usually wasn't enough memory to do it (or the windowing system couldn't count on it and couldn't reclaim it if necessary). In fact, this can be a problem for a Mac with a big menu on a color screen -- it might not actually have enough memory to save the bits. However, MIT used backing store in its Lisp Machine because a) it usually had enough memory, and b) (I think) if it didn't, reclaiming memory on the fly or handling the situation in some other way was possible. X offers backing store because the server might well have plenty of memory available, and also because it never promises backing store is available -- just allows an app to say "ok to use it for this window". In other words, AT&T has patented an industry-wide switch from time over space to space over time as applied to redrawing windows on a display. Further, it isn't yet clear what this means to organizations like MIT and the Free Software Foundation that distribute X implementations for free. Obviously it would be absurd for them to pay licensing fees on products they distribute for free; so, either AT&T will continue to let them distribute for free without requiring license fees, X will have backing store removed as a capability (slowing it down greatly in many cases, I guess), or it'll no longer be distributed for free. This is all actually good news, because it is beginning to finally convince many people that the League for Programming Freedom (league@prep.ai.mit.edu) is worth joining and supporting. Believe me, we're seeing only the tip of the iceberg in software patents and user-interface copyright affecting the viability of the industry as a whole -- which is why I'm an LPF member and a volunteer contributor to the Free Software Foundation. Everyone who objects to the AT&T patent should be the former, and certainly I recommend helping out the FSF or at least ordering GNU software from them or donating funds to them, to everyone concerned with software patents. Note that the latest concern isn't so much backing store, but whether the very idea of include files (as in #include in C, INCLUDE in Fortran, &c) is patented. No definitive word on that -- yet. -- James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson burley@ai.mit.edu
shore@mtxinu.COM (Melinda Shore) (03/02/91)
In article <1991Mar1.124740.26026@pmsmam.uucp> wwm@pmsmam.UUCP (Bill Meahan) writes: >In article <1804@pdxgate.UUCP> berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren) writes: >>I never knew something as ridiculous as this even existed until >>X Windows became property of AT&T. >Are you SURE about this or are you just spreading a rumor based >on something like buying X for a particular computer model? X is not the property of AT&T. AT&T holds the patent for backing store and has decided to start enforcing it. I haven't heard yet if anyone is going to fight this, but it seems certain that someone will. If nothing else, there's ample evidence of prior art. -- Software longa, hardware brevis Melinda Shore shore@mtxinu.com mt Xinu ..!uunet!mtxinu.com!shore
pcooper@eecs.wsu.edu (Phil Cooper - CS495) (03/02/91)
In article <1991Mar1.124740.26026@pmsmam.uucp> wwm@pmsmam.UUCP (Bill Meahan) writes: >In article <1804@pdxgate.UUCP> berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren) writes: >>paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes: >> >> >> Well... well... well... It's nice to see we're all exercising our legal >>rights. I never knew something as ridiculous as this even existed until >>X Windows became property of AT&T. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > SAY WHAT?????????? > >I subscribe to a large number of trade rags and have seen NO mention of this >whatsoever. Are you SURE about this or are you just spreading a rumor based >on something like buying X for a particular computer model? > Well, AT&T does not own X-Windows per se, but they do hold a patent on the back store method of refreshing windows in a GUI. X-Windows (along with just about every other GUI system) uses back store techniques, and AT&T has recently decided to enforce that patent. Sooo, it looks like a lot of companies will be paying hefty licensing fees, which of course will be passed on to the consumers. Screwed once again by the A-holes at AT&T. -Phil- -- /********************************************************************\ * Real Life: Phillip R. Cooper * * Email: pcooper@yoda.eecs.wsu.edu * * Disclaimer: Disclaimer?? I don't need no stinkin' disclaimer!!! *
berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren) (03/03/91)
burley@albert.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes: >In article <1991Mar1.124740.26026@pmsmam.uucp> wwm@pmsmam.uucp (Bill Meahan) writes: > In article <1804@pdxgate.UUCP> berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren) writes: > >paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson) writes: > > > > > > Well... well... well... It's nice to see we're all exercising our legal > >rights. I never knew something as ridiculous as this even existed until > >X Windows became property of AT&T. > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > SAY WHAT?????????? > I subscribe to a large number of trade rags and have seen NO mention of this > whatsoever. Are you SURE about this or are you just spreading a rumor based > on something like buying X for a particular computer model? >He's exaggerating. AT&T has sent letters to many vendors of X Window >implementations saying they must contact AT&T about how to license ($$) >use of the backing store mechanism they "invented". Well... they might as well the way they're going :( . Our school has also received this letter. I thought "software (idea) patenting" resided in the same realm as "look and feel", and was finally ruled out. I just can't (well, I guess I can) believe that AT&T is now trying to walk all over FSF, and all of its followers. I have been using X Windows for several months now, running on Tek 4319's and BSD UNIX, and there is not an AT&T logo anywhere. I have not yet seen FSF's response to this and I am not at all certain how far this issue will be pushed. The first letter to which I replied was discussing the method to do this same patenting technique. I read it and responded just after we found out the good news (and was not in a great mood). Sorry.... -e.b. ============================================================================== Eric Berggren | "The force of the 'Dark Side' eminates from Computer Science/Eng. | the ominous DeathStar looming overhead." berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu | - Down with AT&T! -
mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) (03/03/91)
In article <1991Mar02.090410.24500@eecs.wsu.edu> pcooper@yoda.UUCP (Phil Cooper - CS495) writes: > Well, AT&T does not own X-Windows per se, but they do hold a patent on the >back store method of refreshing windows in a GUI. X-Windows (along with just >about every other GUI system) uses back store techniques, and AT&T has >recently decided to enforce that patent. Sooo, it looks like a lot of >companies will be paying hefty licensing fees, which of course will be passed >on to the consumers. Screwed once again by the A-holes at AT&T. I think that this is misdirected anger. AT&T has a patent, which it is well within its rights to attempt to enforce. Instead, you should be angry at a) The idiots in the patent office who granted this patent. b) The legislators whose patent laws allow such patents to even be considered. As to all of this costing us money, Phil is right, but only because everybody is going to have to retain lawyers to fend off AT&T. I can't believe that the patent will in the end be upheld in court. Marc R. Roussel mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca
berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren) (03/03/91)
pcooper@eecs.wsu.edu (Phil Cooper - CS495) writes: > Well, AT&T does not own X-Windows per se, but they do hold a patent on the >back store method of refreshing windows in a GUI. X-Windows (along with just >about every other GUI system) uses back store techniques, and AT&T has >recently decided to enforce that patent. Sooo, it looks like a lot of >companies will be paying hefty licensing fees, which of course will be passed >on to the consumers. Screwed once again by the A-holes at AT&T. Grumble... grumble... grumble... I wonder where we would all be if Gary Kildall (or somebody) decided to patent the idea of operating systems. (I'm still curious as to the battle over the microprocessor patent) What exactly was the idea behind breaking up Ma Bell again? I keep forgetting... :( -e.b. ============================================================================== Eric Berggren | "The force of the 'Dark Side' eminates from Computer Science/Eng. | the ominous DeathStar looming overhead." berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu | - Down with AT&T! -
dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) (03/03/91)
In article <1991Mar1.184945.6946@mtxinu.COM> shore@mtxinu.com (Melinda Shore) writes: >[...] >X is not the property of AT&T. AT&T holds the patent for backing store >and has decided to start enforcing it. I haven't heard yet if anyone is >going to fight this, but it seems certain that someone will. If nothing >else, there's ample evidence of prior art. Seems like the person with the best claim on any kind of a backing store concept would be Von Neumann... Is it really possible to patent an idea as basic as this? I don't know the details other than what I've read on the net, so let me re-cap my understanding of the issue: 1. AT&T has a patent on the backing store method as used in X-windows 2. This so-called backing store method is simply saving covered-over areas of a bit-mapped display, so they can be quickly restored later. Does AT&T's patent cover any system that this would describe, or is it more specific about implementation? I would find it very disturbing if AT&T were to successfully hold a patent on anything less specific than actual source code. However, I guess I should also state that I find it quite remarkable how detailed algorithms are presented in text books time and time again in seemingly a "public domain" manner. Personally, I think all this freely available accumulated knowledge is one of computer science's strongest assets. Consider what might happen to this legacy if AT&T should succeed in defending their "patent"... There may come a day when you need a licence fee just to look at the Red Dragon book. :-( -- Dave Schaumann dave@cs.arizona.edu 'Dog Gang'! Where do they get off calling us the 'Dog Gang'? I'm beginning to think the party's over. I'm beginning to think maybe we don't need a dog. Or maybe we need a *new* dog. Or maybe we need a *cat*! - Amazing Stories
horne-scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) (03/03/91)
In article <1991Mar2.232430.21510@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes: >In article <1991Mar02.090410.24500@eecs.wsu.edu> pcooper@yoda.UUCP >(Phil Cooper - CS495) writes: < << Well, AT&T does not own X-Windows per se, but they do hold a patent on the <<back store method of refreshing windows in a GUI. X-Windows (along with just <<about every other GUI system) uses back store techniques, and AT&T has <<recently decided to enforce that patent. Sooo, it looks like a lot of <<companies will be paying hefty licensing fees, which of course will be passed <<on to the consumers. Screwed once again by the A-holes at AT&T. < <I think that this is misdirected anger. AT&T has a patent, which it is <well within its rights to attempt to enforce. Instead, you should be <angry at < < a) The idiots in the patent office who granted this patent. < b) The legislators whose patent laws allow such patents to < even be considered. I'm angry with all of them. The assholes (I don't mind spelling it out, Phil) at AT&T are wrong to take advantage of the idiocy of (a) and the foolishness of (b). <As to all of this costing us money, Phil is right, but only because <everybody is going to have to retain lawyers to fend off AT&T. I hope everyone counter-sues AT&T for the court costs and attorneys' fees. >I can't <believe that the patent will in the end be upheld in court. No, but AT&T (damn them) will probably be content with wringing licensing fees out of a few gullible customers. --Scott -- Scott Horne ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne horne@cs.Yale.edu SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520 203 436-1817 Residence: Rm 1817 Silliman College, Yale Univ Uneasy lies the head that wears the _gao1 mao4zi_.
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (03/03/91)
In article <1991Mar2.232430.21510@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes: >In article <1991Mar02.090410.24500@eecs.wsu.edu> pcooper@yoda.UUCP >(Phil Cooper - CS495) writes: >> Well, AT&T does not own X-Windows per se, but they do hold a patent on the >>back store method of refreshing windows in a GUI. X-Windows (along with just >>about every other GUI system) uses back store techniques, and AT&T has >>recently decided to enforce that patent. Sooo, it looks like a lot of >>companies will be paying hefty licensing fees, which of course will be passed >>on to the consumers. Screwed once again by the A-holes at AT&T. >I think that this is misdirected anger. AT&T has a patent, which it is >well within its rights to attempt to enforce. Indeed. There's also the issue of AT&T's responsibility to its shareholders: If this patent is enforceable (which I have no idea about, one way or the other), then AT&T has a duty to its shareholders to maximize its revenues from the patent's licensing. If they were to not enforce the license, or worse yet (for the shareholders), release it into the public domain, they would be open to shareholder lawsuits alleging a breach of fiduciary responsibility and asking that they be forced to enforce the patent. Like it or not, folks, AT&T isn't in business to sell cheap source licenses to universities so they can get BSD. >As to all of this costing us money, Phil is right, but only because >everybody is going to have to retain lawyers to fend off AT&T. I can't >believe that the patent will in the end be upheld in court. There are lots of things that won't be upheld in court that nevertheless have a major hand in shaping software policy: the GNU General Public Virus, for example. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "You can even run GNUemacs under X-windows without paging if you allow about 32MB per user." -- Bill Davidsen "Oink!" -- me
gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (03/04/91)
In article <4789@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >Indeed. There's also the issue of AT&T's responsibility to its shareholders: >If this patent is enforceable (which I have no idea about, one way or the >other), then AT&T has a duty to its shareholders to maximize its revenues >from the patent's licensing. If they were to not enforce the license, or >worse yet (for the shareholders), release it into the public domain, they >would be open to shareholder lawsuits alleging a breach of fiduciary >responsibility and asking that they be forced to enforce the patent. However, public relations has a cost too. I'm sure the AT&Toids aren't thinking of it, but the shareholders always use hindsight when they evaluate decisions. If they lose in court or if the PR is very bad, AT&T isn't going to earn a thing from that patent.
gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (03/04/91)
In article <BURLEY.91Mar1113219@albert.ai.mit.edu> burley@albert.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes: > The Mac uses >backing store for pull-down menus (the bits under the menu are simply >saved, so the menus disappear "quickly" instead of leaving a blank space >on the screen while the window underneath the menu redraws). I believe that both GEM and the Amiga windowing system do this. I wonder if *any* popular windowing system used today but designed before the patent was issued _doesn't_ use backing store? Kind of gives prior art a new twist when *all* of the competition is using your idea before you patent it. Does Microsoft Windows use backing store in any way? Anyone know?
sigma@jec302.its.rpi.edu (Kevin J Martin) (03/04/91)
gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >In article <BURLEY.91Mar1113219@albert.ai.mit.edu> burley@albert.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes: >> The Mac uses >>backing store for pull-down menus (the bits under the menu are simply >>saved, so the menus disappear "quickly" instead of leaving a blank space >>on the screen while the window underneath the menu redraws). >I believe that both GEM and the Amiga windowing system do this. I >wonder if *any* popular windowing system used today but designed >before the patent was issued _doesn't_ use backing store? Kind of gives >prior art a new twist when *all* of the competition is using >your idea before you patent it. >Does Microsoft Windows use backing store in any way? Anyone know? I believe it does if it can - I've really only used a runtime version of Windows 2.0x with Balance of Power 1990. What I discovered was that without a proper memory setup (in the fashion Windows and nobody else likes it), pulldown menus would cause the entire worldmap to be redrawn at a painful and frustrating pace. However, when I reconfigured to Windows' preferences, anything underneath a popup menu would magically reappear rather quickly. Obviously some sort of backing store. I think it's one of the most fundamental ideas anyone could have, and I wouldn't be too surprised if Xerox had been using it in their early windowing systems as well, when AT&T was still tightly wrapped in the Ma Bell apron. If there are any techniques relevant to this issue which could even possibly be justified for a patent, I would think it would be some sort of algorithm for efficient redrawing of complex images! A patent on backing store is just stupid. -- Kevin Martin sigma@rpi.edu
berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren) (03/04/91)
gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >In article <4789@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >>Indeed. There's also the issue of AT&T's responsibility to its shareholders: >>If this patent is enforceable (which I have no idea about, one way or the >>other), then AT&T has a duty to its shareholders to maximize its revenues >>from the patent's licensing. If they were to not enforce the license, or >>worse yet (for the shareholders), release it into the public domain, they >>would be open to shareholder lawsuits alleging a breach of fiduciary >>responsibility and asking that they be forced to enforce the patent. >However, public relations has a cost too. I'm sure the AT&Toids aren't >thinking of it, but the shareholders always use hindsight when they >evaluate decisions. If they lose in court or if the PR is very bad, >AT&T isn't going to earn a thing from that patent. From what I have seen so far, the only anti-AT&T people are just us computer nerds. I doubt they have much to lose by making a couple more enemies. (Quick, everyone, let's phreak!) Wonder if we could con everyone in the U.S. into investing $25 each, buy AT&T and sell them off, piece by piece, then return everyone's money; heh..heh..heh... -e.b. ============================================================================== Eric Berggren | "The force of the 'Dark Side' eminates from Computer Science/Eng. | the ominous DeathStar looming overhead." berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu | - Down with AT&T! -
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/04/91)
gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >In article <BURLEY.91Mar1113219@albert.ai.mit.edu> burley@albert.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes: >> The Mac uses >>backing store for pull-down menus (the bits under the menu are simply >>saved, so the menus disappear "quickly" instead of leaving a blank space >>on the screen while the window underneath the menu redraws). >I believe that both GEM and the Amiga windowing system do this. I >wonder if *any* popular windowing system used today but designed >before the patent was issued _doesn't_ use backing store? Kind of gives >prior art a new twist when *all* of the competition is using >your idea before you patent it. >Does Microsoft Windows use backing store in any way? Anyone know? Yes, I think so. The list of Window Class Styles has a style which is described CS_SAVEBITS Saves the portion of the screen image that is ob- scured by a window; Windows uses the saved bitmap to re-create the screen image when the window is removed. Windows displays the bitmap at its original location and does not send WM_PAINT messages to windows which had been obscured by the window if the memory used by the bitmap has not been discarded and other screen actions have not invalidated the stored image. From Microsoft Windows (tm) Software Development Kit, Reference, version 3, volume 1, page 1-15. This applies to application windows; the programmer has to request this feature during the definition of a window class, by including the above flag. Pull-down-menus have this style (or something equivalent) by default. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
terryl@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Terry Laskodi) (03/04/91)
In article <KY6-6LA@rpi.edu> sigma@jec302.its.rpi.edu (Kevin J Martin) writes: +gl8f@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: +>In article <BURLEY.91Mar1113219@albert.ai.mit.edu> burley@albert.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes: +>> The Mac uses +>>backing store for pull-down menus (the bits under the menu are simply +>>saved, so the menus disappear "quickly" instead of leaving a blank space +>>on the screen while the window underneath the menu redraws). + +>I believe that both GEM and the Amiga windowing system do this. I +>wonder if *any* popular windowing system used today but designed +>before the patent was issued _doesn't_ use backing store? Kind of gives +>prior art a new twist when *all* of the competition is using +>your idea before you patent it. Isn't this called "prior art", and isn't it a legal term??? Isn't this one way to have a patent invalidated??? Some of my few remaining neurons remember this from somewhere in my distant past, but can't remember quite where.....
harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (Mark Harrison) (03/05/91)
Several people write things such as: >Down with AT&T! >Screwed once again by the A-holes at AT&T. In this frenzy about backing store, don't forget AT&T has also made a few positive contributions to computing, such as Unix and transistors. :-) -- Mark Harrison harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (214)518-5050 {necntc, cs.utexas.edu}!necssd!harrison standard disclaimers apply...
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (03/05/91)
>>> The Mac uses >>>backing store for pull-down menus (the bits under the menu are simply >>>saved, so the menus disappear "quickly" instead of leaving a blank space >>>on the screen while the window underneath the menu redraws). That technique is, in X servers, generally referred to as a "save-under", not as "backing store". (See sections 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 of the X11R3 (and maybe X11R4) versions of the Xlib manual; 3.2.5 quite explicitly says that save-unders "[are] not the same as preserving the contents of a window for you.") >>Does Microsoft Windows use backing store in any way? Anyone know? > >Yes, I think so. The list of Window Class Styles has a style >which is described > >CS_SAVEBITS Saves the portion of the screen image that is ob- > scured by a window; Windows uses the saved bitmap > to re-create the screen image when the window is > removed. Windows displays the bitmap at its original > location and does not send WM_PAINT messages to > windows which had been obscured by the window if the > memory used by the bitmap has not been discarded and > other screen actions have not invalidated the stored > image. > >From Microsoft Windows (tm) Software Development Kit, Reference, >version 3, volume 1, page 1-15. > >This applies to application windows; the programmer has to request >this feature during the definition of a window class, by including >the above flag. Pull-down-menus have this style (or something equivalent) >by default. Again, that sounds more like save-unders than like backing store, unless *subsequent* attempts to draw to the obscured portion of the window in question *while it's still obscured* cause the saved portion to be updated appropriately. I think the AT&T patent covers "backing store" in the sense that software sitting above the patented layer of software doesn't know what parts of the window it's drawing to are on-screen and which parts are off-screen; the patented layer manages both on-screen and off-screen bitmaps for different parts of that window transparently. I seem to remember that being one of the features of the "layers" software for the Blit that Rob Pike was touting as one of the wins of that software. So, unless one can extrapolate from save-unders to the more general notion of backing store in a way that would render the latter unpatentable, I don't think discussion of the notion of temporarily saving a *static* part of an obscured window and redrawing it when the obscuring window goes away is all that relevant; the question is whether anybody had implemented the more general notion of backing store before AT&T did. Did the various systems being cited as "prior art" do so?
new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) (03/05/91)
In article <6426@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: >the question is whether >anybody had implemented the more general notion of backing store before >AT&T did. Did the various systems being cited as "prior art" do so? Well, the Amiga graphics library does exactly what you describe (if asked). It was available commercially in 1985. What's the application date on the AT&T patent? Also, always remember that the validity or invalidity of the patent is unlikely to change the cost of fighting that patent. FSF and MIT are unlikely (I would guess) to invest huge sums of money fighting a patent just so they can continue to give away software with that capability. -- Darren -- --- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware --- ----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, Formal Description Techniques (esp. Estelle), Coffee, Amigas ----- =+=+=+ Let GROPE be an N-tuple where ... +=+=+=
robin@gradient.gradient.com (Dr R.P. Alston) (03/05/91)
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: >I think the AT&T patent covers "backing store" in the sense that software >sitting above the patented layer of software doesn't know what parts of >the window it's drawing to are on-screen and which parts are off-screen; >the patented layer manages both on-screen and off-screen bitmaps for >different parts of that window transparently. I seem to remember that >being one of the features of the "layers" software for the Blit that Rob >Pike was touting as one of the wins of that software. >So, unless one can extrapolate from save-unders to the more general >notion of backing store in a way that would render the latter >unpatentable, I don't think discussion of the notion of temporarily >saving a *static* part of an obscured window and redrawing it when the >obscuring window goes away is all that relevant; the question is whether >anybody had implemented the more general notion of backing store before >AT&T did. Did the various systems being cited as "prior art" do so? Well, My 10 cents worth. In 1985 during my PhD, the layers work done by Rob Pike as described in: "Graphics in overlapping bitmap layers", ACM Transactions on Graphics, 2 135 (1983). and more in : "Hardware/Software Trade-offs for Bitmap Graphics on the Blit", Software-Practice and Experience, Vol 15(2), 131-151 (Feb 1985) "The Blit: a multiplexed graphics terminal", BSTJ 63 No 8 Part 2 1607 1631 (October 1984). was implemented by Simon Kenyon as a package entitled JERQ and made available on the net in C source. I snaffled a copy and played with it and in fact made it function on a home brew graphics system I was building for the research. It worked, it used the backing store concept . It is quite evident from these dates that Rob Pike was doing this work before 1983, the patent application date might be what people really need to know, and I would hazard a guess that it siginficantly pre-dates all the 'other' systems that people refer to that now may use this concept. What the heck, just a few pieces of info that enquiring minds need to know. robin -- Dr Robin P. Alston, Principal Member, Technical Staff, Gradient Technologies, robin@gradient.com
pmoore@hemel.bull.co.uk (Paul Moore) (03/06/91)
Talking of basic patents (Kildall on OS , or V Neumann on backing store) I read that Quarterdeck hold the patent for multiprocessing windows environments - they havent done anything yet but what happens when Windows 3/32/4 kills DesqView (as it surely will). -- !---------------------------------------------------------------! ! Paul Moore, Bull HN UK, Maxted Rd,Hemel Hempstead, HP2 7DZ. ! ! Phone:(44) 442 232222 Fax:(44) 442 234084 ! ! pmoore@hemel.bull.co.uk "a smile, a song and a core dump" ! !---------------------------------------------------------------!
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (03/06/91)
In <996@caslon.cs.arizona.edu> dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) writes: > In <1991Mar1.184945.6946@mtxinu.COM> shore@mtxinu.com (Melinda Shore) writes: > > AT&T holds the patent for backing store [...] > Is it really possible to patent an idea as basic as this? There has been a lot of press about patents lately, and how some companies are able to patent basic ideas and what are essentially mathematical formulas by calling them software algorithms. I have heard that someone, and it might have been ATT, obtained a pattent on using XOR to put a cursor on a terminal screen. Talk about a basic idea.... -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
jcav@ellis.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (03/07/91)
In article <46531@nigel.ee.udel.edu> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: >In article <6426@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: >>the question is whether >>anybody had implemented the more general notion of backing store before >>AT&T did. Did the various systems being cited as "prior art" do so? > >Well, the Amiga graphics library does exactly what you describe (if asked). >It was available commercially in 1985. What's the application date on the >AT&T patent? Isn't the Amiga Layers library quite explicitly an implementation of the patented AT&T code, as described in Pike's paper(s)? -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 "Opinions, my boy. Just opinions" | Telephone: 312-702-6900
strobl@gmdzi.gmd.de (Wolfgang Strobl) (03/07/91)
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: >That technique is, in X servers, generally referred to as a >"save-under", not as "backing store". (See sections 3.2.4 and 3.2.5 of >the X11R3 (and maybe X11R4) versions of the Xlib manual; 3.2.5 quite >explicitly says that save-unders "[are] not the same as preserving the >contents of a window for you.") > >>Does Microsoft Windows use backing store in any way? Anyone know? > > > >Yes, I think so. The list of Window Class Styles has a style > >which is described > > > >CS_SAVEBITS Saves the portion of the screen image that is ob- > > scured by a window; > > ... >Again, that sounds more like save-unders than like backing store, unless >*subsequent* attempts to draw to the obscured portion of the window in >question *while it's still obscured* cause the saved portion to be >updated appropriately. Yes, that is probably true. Curiously, the earlier Windows 2 SDK contained a different definition (the above quote was from the Windows 3 SDK): CS_SAVEBITS Saves the window's bitmap; the application can use the bitmap to re-create the original window. From Microsoft (r) Windows System Development Kit, Programmers Reference version 2, page 32. *This* sounds more like a definition similar to backing store, in my opinion. The actual implementation is, as far as I know, "save-unders". >I think the AT&T patent covers "backing store" in the sense that software >sitting above the patented layer of software doesn't know what parts of >the window it's drawing to are on-screen and which parts are off-screen; >the patented layer manages both on-screen and off-screen bitmaps for >different parts of that window transparently. I seem to remember that >being one of the features of the "layers" software for the Blit that Rob >Pike was touting as one of the wins of that software. >So, unless one can extrapolate from save-unders to the more general >notion of backing store in a way that would render the latter >unpatentable, I don't think discussion of the notion of temporarily >saving a *static* part of an obscured window and redrawing it when the >obscuring window goes away is all that relevant; the question is whether >anybody had implemented the more general notion of backing store before >AT&T did. Did the various systems being cited as "prior art" do so? I don't yet understand *what* the patented idea really is. MS Windows programs - and I assume Macintosh programms, too - are usually constructed in a way where the whole program is separated into two parts, one managing the "state" (the text, the drawing, ...), and the other one interpreting the state and painting into a device context, which is usually, but not necessarily connected to the screen. Both parts in principle know nothing about which parts of the state are visible and which aren't. It is common practice to reinterpret and to repaint only the changed portions of the state, and to suppress the invisible portions of the drawing. Often, both the "state" to be displayed or the device context to be drawn onto are bitmaps. The classical paint type drawing programs are usually of the former sort, and the vector oriented draw type programs are of the latter sort. In both cases, the usage of a bitmap fit your definition of backing store - they contain more than what is visible on the screen, the program doesn't know what is on-screen and what is off-screen, and the invisible parts of the bitmap are used to display exposed parts of the picture. In my opinion, there is no invention here, its only a new way to describe an old, known optimization method. Wolfgang Strobl #include <std.disclaimer.hpp>
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (03/07/91)
>Also, always remember that the validity or invalidity of the patent is >unlikely to change the cost of fighting that patent. FSF and MIT are >unlikely (I would guess) to invest huge sums of money fighting a patent >just so they can continue to give away software with that capability. Yes, but assorted members of the X Consortium, e.g. IBM, DEC, HP, might be more willing to do so just so they can continue not paying AT&T royalties for those implementations.... Also, here's a posting from "gnu.misc.discuss" that's probably worth reading; it notes what Pike's paper covers (and what the patent may cover), and also notes that the MIT X server doesn't do things exactly the same way Pike described, so it may or may not infringe AT&T's patent: From: amanda@visix.com (Amanda Walker) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: AT&T Threat against X Windows freedom Message-ID: <1991Mar5.164343.15344@visix.com> Date: 5 Mar 91 16:43:43 GMT Organization: Visix Software Inc., Reston, VA rjg@iSC.intel.com (Richard Greco) writes: >One clarification to several other poster's comments. The Pike >patent covers the notion of backing store and not save unders. Pike's paper only covered a particular implementation of backing store, not the general concept. Now, if the reference X server code had in fact used Pike's algorithms (which it does not), there would be a problem. In particular: The essence of Pike's approach was to represent the obscured portions of a window with a list of rectangular bitmaps, the union of which constituted the obscured area of the screen. This way, the memory used for backing store for a window was directly proportional to the area of the window that was obscured. This separates the approach from previous backing store schemes, which simply kept around a full-size bitmap of the window's contents. Pike also wrote a clever wrapper around "bitblt" which automagically copied pieces of the source bitmap into the appropriate destination (either the actual screen buffer or one of the obscured rectangle bitmaps). The MIT reference X server, on the other hand, keeps around a full size image of the window, as did several systems before Pike's. Now, from my (admittedly casual) understanding of the MIT server code, the only way it might infringe on Pike's work is that drawing operations are distributed between the visible screen buffer and the backing store as they are done, instead of always drawing to the backing store, and then copying to the screen. However, the mechanism and the underlying representation are quite different. There are, in fact, comments in the code that refer to Pike's work and point out contrasts. Go take a look at the file ".../mit/server/ddx/mi/mibstore.c". Of course, I'm not a lawyer, and it may require MIT going to court against AT&T, but so far I think MIT has the better case. -- Amanda Walker amanda@visix.com Visix Software Inc. ...!uunet!visix!amanda -- "When power leads man towards arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the area of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses." --John F. Kennedy
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (03/09/91)
>I have heard that someone, and it might have been ATT, obtained a pattent >on using XOR to put a cursor on a terminal screen. No, it wasn't AT&T. Did you have any reason to believe that it was?
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (03/11/91)
In article <6497@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: > > I have heard that someone, and it might have been ATT, obtained a pattent > > on using XOR to put a cursor on a terminal screen. > No, it wasn't AT&T. Did you have any reason to believe that it was? I did, but I was slightly mistaken. It is patent #4,197,590, owned by Cadtrak. It was upheld twice in court even though the technique was used by others for many years before Cadtrak applied for the patent. As a result, Cadtrak receives several million dollars a year in user fees from a number of manufacturers. Even though a 13 year might "invent" this technique, you better not use it unless you are willing to pay for it. -john- -- =============================================================================== John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john ===============================================================================
berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren) (03/12/91)
pmoore@hemel.bull.co.uk (Paul Moore) writes: >Talking of basic patents (Kildall on OS , or V Neumann on backing store) I >read that Quarterdeck hold the patent for multiprocessing windows environments >- they havent done anything yet but what happens when Windows 3/32/4 kills >DesqView (as it surely will). What do you/they mean by "multiprocessing window environments"? Sounds kinda like X-Windows. I know they have a patent and some "internal" magic, but I can't recall exactly what... -e.b. ============================================================================== Eric Berggren | "The force of the 'Dark Side' eminates from Computer Science/Eng. | the ominous DeathStar looming overhead." berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu | - Down with AT&T! -
berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Eric Berggren) (03/12/91)
harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (Mark Harrison) writes: >Several people write things such as: >>Down with AT&T! >>Screwed once again by the A-holes at AT&T. >In this frenzy about backing store, don't forget AT&T has also made >a few positive contributions to computing, such as Unix and transistors. :-) That was Bell Labs. They weren't quite as evil (the good and the bad in one). Ever see the Star Trek episode "Turnabout Intruder"? They broke up just to get into the software computer market and do things like this. Either way, they're still "A-holes". :( <grumble,grumble> I'm suprised they have claimed transistors yet. Of course, I just gave someone the idea. -e.b. This is "The right choice"? ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Uh, oh, copyright violation! ============================================================================== Eric Berggren | "The force of the 'Dark Side' eminates from Computer Science/Eng. | the ominous DeathStar looming overhead." berggren@eecs.cs.pdx.edu | - Down with AT&T! -
jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) (03/12/91)
In article <693@newave.UUCP> john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: >In article <6497@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes: >> > I have heard that someone, and it might have been ATT, obtained a pattent >> > on using XOR to put a cursor on a terminal screen. > >> No, it wasn't AT&T. Did you have any reason to believe that it was? > >I did, but I was slightly mistaken. It is patent #4,197,590, owned >by Cadtrak. It was upheld twice in court even though the technique >was used by others for many years before Cadtrak applied for the patent. >As a result, Cadtrak receives several million dollars a year in user fees >from a number of manufacturers. Even though a 13 year might "invent" this >technique, you better not use it unless you are willing to pay for it. > >-john- > >-- >=============================================================================== >John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org >NeWave Communications ...uunet!rosevax!tcnet!wd0gol!newave!john >=============================================================================== well, I guess we had better inform the Computer Science departments at the colleges and univeristies...using XOR to place a cursor on a graphics display is one of the basic techniques taught in Graphics I. I can point to several textbooks that specifically mention this technique...better yet, why don't the schools offer a course in patents, i.e. list all the "common-knowledge" techniques that we're not allowed to use, because someone has a patent on it... talk about a way to stifle creativity and innovation...I suppose someone has a patent on the use of stacks and queues and symbol tables... John Burton (jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov)
rhialto@cs.kun.nl (Olaf'Rhialto'Seibert) (03/13/91)
In article <1991Mar6.164559.12497@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@ellis.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: |In article <46531@nigel.ee.udel.edu> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: |>Well, the Amiga graphics library does exactly what you describe (if asked). |>It was available commercially in 1985. What's the application date on the |>AT&T patent? | |Isn't the Amiga Layers library quite explicitly an implementation of the |patented AT&T code, as described in Pike's paper(s)? And was a certain Rob Pike not an employee of Commodore-Amiga? (the same Pike, or just a coincidence?) -- Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert rhialto@cs.kun.nl How can you be so stupid if you're identical to me? -Robert Silverberg
guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) (03/14/91)
>And was a certain Rob Pike not an employee of Commodore-Amiga? >(the same Pike, or just a coincidence?) I was unaware that the Rob Pike who has worked for a fair while at Bell Labs, and who did the layers code in the Blit, had ever worked at Commodore-Amiga; I suspect it's just a coincidence.
aeb@briar.Philips.Com (Anne Barschall) (03/14/91)
In article <693@newave.UUCP> john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: >I did, but I was slightly mistaken. It is patent #4,197,590, owned >by Cadtrak. It was upheld twice in court even though the technique >was used by others for many years before Cadtrak applied for the patent. You can bet that no one was able to prove that the technique was used before Cadtrak applied for a patent, otherwise the patent would NOT have stood up in court.