mfeldman@zodiac.ads.com (Mike Feldman) (02/23/91)
In article <BHANAFEE.91Feb22103004@deimos.ads.com> bhanafee@deimos.ads.com (Brian Hanafee) writes: In article <9102220300.AA24170@rice-chex> gnulists@AI.MIT.EDU (GNU Mailing List Maintainence) writes: From: gnulists@AI.MIT.EDU (GNU Mailing List Maintainence) Newsgroups: gnu.announce Date: 22 Feb 91 03:00:42 GMT Reply-To: tower-prep@prep.ai.mit.edu Distribution: gnu Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA +1 (617) 876-3296 Approved: info-gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu [ I wonder what prior art existed, and if it invalidates AT&T's patent. -len ] Return-Path: <news@pcsbst.pcs.com> To: unido!gnu-announce Path: pcsbst!jkh From: jkh@meepmeep.pcs.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Newsgroups: gnu.announce Subject: AT&T Claims patent on part of MIT's X11 server. Date: 20 Feb 91 14:38:26 GMT Organization: /usr1/ben/jkh/.organization I thought that this would be of general interest, to say the least.. The following letter has been sent by AT&T to all (to my knowledge) MIT X Consortium members, though its claims potentially affect *all* users of The X Window System, version 11 / revision 3 and above. To quote the letter directly (all misreferences to "X Windows" intentionally left in): < Dated February 7, 1991 > Dear <unfortunate X user>: AT&T is aware that your company/institution is an active participant in the further development of the X Windows System. We assume that your company/institution is, or may well be, commercially marketing or internally developing products(s) which are based on an X Windows System implementation. Consequently, we bring to your attention an AT&T patent #4,555,775 invented by Robert C. Pike and issued on November 26, 1985. The "backing store" functionality available in the X Windows System is an implementation of this patented invention, therefore, your company/institution needs a license from AT&T for the use of this patent. We will be pleased to discuss licensing arrangements with the appropriate organization in your company/institution. To expedite these arrangements, your response should be directed to Ms. O. T. Franz at: AT&T 10 Independence Boulevard Room: LL2-3A28 Warren, New Jersey 07059-6799 Telephone: 908-580-5929 FAX: 908-580-6355 We look forward to resolving this matter in the near future. Very truly yours, <signature> A.E. Herron Manager, Intellectual Property Copy to: L. Bearson O.T. Franz R.E. Kerwin ---- So. What more can I say? You are, of course, free to direct your responses to those listed above.. :-) One also wonders about other window systems using "backing store" and the degree to which this patent will be enforced. Jordan -- PCS Computer Systeme GmbH, Munich, West Germany UUCP: pyramid!pcsbst!jkh jkh@meepmeep.pcs.com EUNET: unido!pcsbst!jkh ARPA: jkh@violet.berkeley.edu or hubbard@decwrl.dec.com
kaboom@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Jon Maiara) (02/23/91)
I know it's not the policy of this list's maintainers to make a practice of answering general questions, for lack of time, but perhaps this backing store issue warrants some kind of statement. I would certainly believe that one of the X gurus has heard of this patent, and perhaps seen the application. It might be helpful if one of the consortium leader-types could say whether they have seen the patent and think the claim is bogus, if they think we're doomed, or whatever. Even if bizarre legal doings prevent this, it would still be helpful to hear something. -- ---Jon Maiara <kaboom@media-lab.media.mit.edu>
mouse@lightning.mcrcim.mcgill.EDU (02/23/91)
> Consequently, we bring to your attention an AT&T patent #4,555,775 > invented by Robert C. Pike and issued on November 26, 1985. The > "backing store" functionality available in the X Windows System is an > implementation of this patented invention, Or at least so AT&T is reported to be claiming. Has anyone looked up patent #4555775? It seems to me it would be most helpful to post a copy of it. Also, have similar letters arrived in any other countries? Any non-US Consortium members care to speak up? (Really. Trying to patent backing-store. Well, that finally puts paid to any thoughts I might have had about buying *anything* from AT&T.) der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
rws@expo.lcs.mit.EDU (Bob Scheifler) (02/25/91)
I know it's not the policy of this list's maintainers to make a
practice of answering general questions, for lack of time,
More of a practical necessity than a policy.
but perhaps this backing store issue warrants some kind of statement.
It's not obvious to me that there's much to be gained from a statement
or a discussion on this list. If you are interested in the specifics
of the patent, then I suggest you obtain a copy, read it, and come up
with your own interpretation of what it says, rather than relying on
the interpretation and/or guess-work of others. If you believe you
understand the patent and you have real documentation to invalidate
specific claims made in the patent, there are people who would be
interested in obtaining it. If you would like to become active in the
general issue of software patents, there are organizations you can join.
At the directon of Congress, the Office of Technology Assessment is
currently conducting a study specifically directed at software intellectual
property policies, "Computer Software and Intellectual Property: Meeting
the Challenges of Technological Change and Global Competition". If you
believe you can contribute to their study, I can tell you who to contat.
It might be helpful if one of the
consortium leader-types could say whether they have seen the patent
Yes, of course.kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) (02/25/91)
Does this really surprise anyone? After all, the LABEL file distributed
with the source contains the following:
X Window System, Version 11
Release 4
contents copyrighted by
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Adobe Systems, Inc.
Apollo Computer Inc.
Apple Computer, Inc.
********* AT&T, Inc. **************
Don Bennett
Bigelow & Holmes
Bitstream, Inc.
I'm not a lawyer, but I think AT&T might have a tough time enforcing
this patent.
--
Kaleb Keithley kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov
As of right now, I'm in charge here now... Alexander Haig.
Voodoo Economics, that's what it is, voodoo economics. George Bushsean@dsl.pitt.edu (Sean McLinden) (02/26/91)
In article <KABOOM.91Feb23080841@lady-day.media-lab.media.mit.edu> kaboom@media-lab.media.mit.edu (Jon Maiara) writes: >and perhaps seen the application. It might be helpful if one of the >consortium leader-types could say whether they have seen the patent >and think the claim is bogus, if they think we're doomed, or whatever. >Even if bizarre legal doings prevent this, it would still be helpful >to hear something. I'm neither a guru nor a spokesperson for anyone in the consortium but this claim seems like the workings of some wet-behind-the-ears law school graduate just hired by ATT. Apart from the technical considerations I suspect that the ATT claim would not find much sympathy in court. One difficulty is the fact that the X sources have been publically available for many years (I am sure that ATT had at least one copy), and in that time they made no effort to enforce the patent until now. Their motivation seems pretty clear; the nuisance costs will be greater, to most, than the cost of the license. Frankly, I doubt that they have the resources to press this issue if everyone simply ignored it. Besides being a technical miscalculation this may be one of the bigger public relations blunders that I've seen in a long time. Sean McLinden Decision Systems Laboratory University of Pittsburgh
jym@sgi.com (Administration Training Course) (02/26/91)
In article <1991Feb25.154715.9834@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes: >Does this really surprise anyone? After all, the LABEL file distributed >with the source contains the following: > > X Window System, Version 11 > Release 4 > > contents copyrighted by > > Massachusetts Institute of Technology > Adobe Systems, Inc. > Apollo Computer Inc. > Apple Computer, Inc. >********* AT&T, Inc. ************** > Don Bennett > Bigelow & Holmes > Bitstream, Inc. > >I'm not a lawyer, but I think AT&T might have a tough time enforcing >this patent. Could someone at AT&T comment on this issue? jim t
tree@sadye.uvm.edu (Tom Emerson) (02/26/91)
>>>>> On 25 Feb 91 15:47:15 GMT, kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) said:
Kaleb> Does this really surprise anyone? After all, the LABEL file distributed
Kaleb> with the source contains the following:
[deleted...]
Kaleb> Apple Computer, Inc.
Kaleb> ********* AT&T, Inc. **************
Kaleb> Don Bennett
[...deleted]
Kaleb> I'm not a lawyer, but I think AT&T might have a tough time enforcing
Kaleb> this patent.
Simply giving them credit does not protect from Patent infringement.
AT&T is after $$$$ for this rediculous patent. Either way, WE MUST
FIGHT THE DEATH STAR ON THIS!
Just my $0.02 worth.
Tom
--
Tom Emerson
________________ Student Systems Programmer - EMBA Computer Facility
/ /_) /_ /_ University of Vermont
/ / \ /__ /__ tree@newton.uvm.edu
Be an optimist -- at least until they start bringing animals
in pairs to Cape Canaveral.us269574@mmm.serc.3m.com (Darryn J. Kozak) (02/26/91)
From article <9102231551.AA01386@lightning.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>, by mouse@lightning.mcrcim.mcgill.EDU: >> Consequently, we bring to your attention an AT&T patent #4,555,775 >> invented by Robert C. Pike and issued on November 26, 1985. The >> "backing store" functionality available in the X Windows System is an >> implementation of this patented invention, > > Or at least so AT&T is reported to be claiming. . . . > > (Really. Trying to patent backing-store. Well, that finally puts paid > to any thoughts I might have had about buying *anything* from AT&T.) > > der Mouse > > old: mcgill-vision!mouse > new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu I suspect not only are they trying to patent, but that they actually did! If they were the first - hurray for them. If someone else was using backing store before them and they can prove it, no one has anything to worry about (probably). But if AT&T invented it - shouldn't they get the credit? Darryn Kozak 3M Center 260-4A-08 St. Paul, MN 55144 phone: 612-733-3271 email: us269574@mmm.3m.com or kozak@umn-cs.edu FAX: 612-737-3213
us269574@mmm.serc.3m.com (Darryn J. Kozak) (02/26/91)
From article <1991Feb25.233326.3064@odin.corp.sgi.com>, by jym@sgi.com (Administration Training Course): > In article <1991Feb25.154715.9834@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov> kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) writes: >>Does this really surprise anyone? After all, the LABEL file distributed >>with the source contains the following: >> >> X Window System, Version 11 >> Release 4 >> >> contents copyrighted by >> >> Massachusetts Institute of Technology >> Adobe Systems, Inc. >> Apollo Computer Inc. >> Apple Computer, Inc. >>********* AT&T, Inc. ************** >> Don Bennett >> Bigelow & Holmes >> Bitstream, Inc. >> >>I'm not a lawyer, but I think AT&T might have a tough time enforcing >>this patent. > > Could someone at AT&T comment on this issue? > > jim t Only if AT&T doesn't have any attorney's. A very unlikely scenario. Darryn Kozak 3M Center 260-4A-08 St. Paul, MN 55144 phone: 612-733-3271 email: us269574@mmm.3m.com or kozak@umn-cs.edu FAX: 612-737-3213
rlh2@ukc.ac.uk (R.L.Hesketh) (02/27/91)
In article <9102231551.AA01386@lightning.McRCIM.McGill.EDU> mouse@lightning.mcrcim.mcgill.EDU writes: >Also, have similar letters arrived in any other countries? Any non-US >Consortium members care to speak up? Yeah, UKC got one last week even though were not in the consortium anymore. We all thought April had come early this year. Richard
kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) (02/28/91)
In article <TREE.91Feb26081828@sadye.uvm.edu> tree@sadye.uvm.edu (Tom Emerson) writes: > On 25 Feb 91 15:47:15 GMT, kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) said: > >> Does this really surprise anyone? After all, the LABEL file distributed >> with the source contains the following: > >> Apple Computer, Inc. >> ********* AT&T, Inc. ************** >> Don Bennett > >> I'm not a lawyer, but I think AT&T might have a tough time enforcing >> this patent. > >Simply giving them credit does not protect from Patent infringement. >AT&T is after $$$$ for this rediculous patent. I didn't say giving them credit prevented patent infringement claims. My opinion is based on my (meager) knowledge and understanding of business law. I didn't think that c.w.x was an appropriate forum for discussion of the legal ramifications of estoppel, therefore, I didn't go into disertation mode. And, as I'm not a lawyer, I also decided that I would be doing a disservice if I mis-stated legal principles. My reference to the LABEL file was merely to point out that there is a large amount of copyrighted and patented work within the X distribution. -- Kaleb Keithley kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov As of right now, I'm in charge here now... Alexander Haig. Voodoo Economics, that's what it is, voodoo economics. George Bush
bpendlet@es.com (Bob Pendleton) (03/01/91)
In article <1991Feb25.163318.14659@dsl.pitt.edu>, sean@dsl.pitt.edu (Sean McLinden) writes: |> Frankly, I doubt that they have the resources to press this issue |> if everyone simply ignored it. Besides being a technical miscalculation |> this may be one of the bigger public relations blunders that I've |> seen in a long time. You obviously have no idea just how big AT&T is and the kinds of damages they could collect if you "simply ignore it." I suspect that many vendors will simply delete the backing store code from their servers and promise AT&T that they won't ever turn it back on. I've never had it turned on in any of the servers I've worked on because it isn't worth didly if your frame buffer has more than just a few planes. It takes way to much memory when you have 96 bit pixels. -- Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself. bpendlet@dsd.es.com or decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet Tools, not rules.
sxb@sequoia.cray.com (Stephen Behling) (03/01/91)
|> >and perhaps seen the application. It might be helpful if one of the |> >consortium leader-types could say whether they have seen the patent |> >and think the claim is bogus, if they think we're doomed, or whatever. |> >Even if bizarre legal doings prevent this, it would still be helpful |> >to hear something. |> |> I'm neither a guru nor a spokesperson for anyone in the consortium |> but this claim seems like the workings of some wet-behind-the-ears |> law school graduate just hired by ATT. How about somebody applying for a patent on a certain "Method to Argue a Legal Brief"? Then any lawyer trying the same argument/technique would be subject to a lawsuit. This is a recursive tight loop, so pretty soon all the lawyers in the country will be tied up in lawsuits with each other--and we would all be better off. How about an AT&T tight loop---if you find two people with automatic phone forwarding that would simultaneously forward to each other.... Patent no. 123456789 pending for the above sarcasm.... Opinions are mine......obviously.
tree@newton.uvm.edu (Tom Emerson) (03/01/91)
>>>>> On 28 Feb 91 15:42:54 GMT, kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) said:
[stuff deleted.]
Kaleb> My reference to the LABEL file was merely to point out that there is
Kaleb> a large amount of copyrighted and patented work within the X distribution.
I still feel that just giving the Death Star credit in the LABEL file
is not the same as paying a license to use a particular patent. The
LABEL protects from possible legal action in regards to copyright
infringement, but not against patent infringement. It would not
hinder AT&T at all if they did decide to press the issue in the
courts.
Tom
--
Tom Emerson
________________ Student Systems Programmer - EMBA Computer Facility
/ /_) /_ /_ University of Vermont
/ / \ /__ /__ tree@newton.uvm.edu
What can you say about a society that says God is
dead and Elvis is alive?tih@barsoom.nhh.no (Tom Ivar Helbekkmo) (03/02/91)
The "backing store" functionality of X11 is something we can go without if need be. In fact, I run X with backing store turned off on all our DECwindows workstations, because of a memory leak in the implementation. The X documentation credits several companies with letting MIT use copyrighted software in X -- including AT&T. This prominent display announcing these companies' willingness to give something for free to the community is a Good Thing, by my lights. So -- what if MIT simply dropped backing store from X, and added a prominent text to the documentation (next to the credits to various companies), saying something like "Because AT&T, unlike [list of names including DEC, Apple, etc], is committed to software hoarding and silly lawsuits, the backing store facility has been removed from X11. For more information on this issue, contact [someone at AT&T]." (A different wording should be used, I guess, but something along these lines.) -tih -- Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, NHH, Bergen, Norway. Telephone: +47-5-959205 tih@barsoom.nhh.no, thelbekk@norunit.bitnet, edb_tom@debet.nhh.no
mikeo@integr19.cetia.fr (Mike Overton) (03/05/91)
In article <9102231551.AA01386@lightning.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>, mouse@lightning.mcrcim.mcgill.EDU writes: |> Also, have similar letters arrived in any other countries? Any non-US |> Consortium members care to speak up? |> Yes - we have received the letter. No decisions have been taken yet. My own personal feeling is that they seem to have taken a VERY long time to mention their patent - perhaps waiting for everybody to do the relevant work, so that it is a question of a) removing the offending code from the server - perhaps costing a considerable amount in terms of personnel etc. or b) paying up. This looks to me to be a little suspicious! These are my own opinions - I do not speak for CETIA on this subject. Mike Overton.
barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) (03/07/91)
It looks to me like AT&T's patent-infringement claim is unfounded. Here is
an excerpt from a comment from server/ddx/mi/mibstore.c in the MIT sample
server:
* This is a cross between saving everything and just saving the
* obscued areas (as in Pike's layers.)
If this comment is correct, and if the patented algorithm is the one used
in "Pike's layers" (seems like a reasonable assumption), MIT's backing
store implementation is explicitly *not* using the patented mechanism.
Claim 9 of the patent (posted by Ritchie to comp.misc and gnu.misc.discuss
-- maybe suppose someone should copy it here) specifically says that the
terminal maintains a separate backing bitmap for each obscured area of a
window and each window maintains a list of its backing bitmaps, and claim
10 says that each backing bitmap list includes a specification of the size
and position of the window. MIT's code only seems to maintain a single
backing pixmap per window.
Furthermore, claim 1 in the patent specifies that it deals with
*rectangular* windows. X servers that implement the shape extension
support non-rectangular windows, and don't fall under the claims of the
patent.
--
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.
barmar@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmarcasey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) (03/07/91)
Just to be obnoxious, how 'bout if we all call AT&T and tell them we're switching our long distance phone carrier specifically because of this issue? Pass this note around to enough people and boycott the suckers ...
brtmac@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu (Brett McCoy) (03/07/91)
In <92683@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) writes: > Just to be obnoxious, how 'bout if we all call AT&T and tell them we're >switching our long distance phone carrier specifically because of this >issue? Pass this note around to enough people and boycott the suckers ... If you're serious about boycotting them I suggest you post something to trial.alt.boycott. ( Hi Mike :-) -- "I wrote a lisp program once...it wrote back to me." -- unknown Reality is for people who can't deal with drugs. Brett McCoy Computing and Telecommunications Activities brtmac@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu Kansas State University