jsh@usenix.org (Jeffrey S. Haemer) (07/06/90)
From: jsh@usenix.org (Jeffrey S. Haemer)
Five people have now brought to my attention that my
recent editorial says the compress/uncompress algorithm is
copyrighted: Dave Grindelman, Guy Harris, Keith Bostic, Randall
Howard, and Hugh Redelmeier. That's wrong. It isn't
copyrighted, it's patented. My apologies to anyone I mislead.
Randall's note contains a lot of interesting details that it's worth posting
and he's given me permission to post it.
I've appended it.
Jeff
=====
[From Randall Howard]
Actually the problem is not that the compress algorithm is copyrighted
but that it is PATENTED by Welch (the "W" in the LZW name of the algorithm).
The patent is currently held by Unisys Corporation and they make money
from licence fees on that patent because of the use of LZW encoding
in the new high-speed modems. Note that the Lempel-Ziv algorithm
is apparently not patented, but just the Welch variant as is found in the
UNIX compress utility. Therefore, at the cost of inventing a new file
compression standard, it would be possible to escape licence fees by
using a different variant of LZ compression.
[Editor: Keith Bostic says both are patented:
original Ziv-Lempel is patent number 4,464,650,
and the more powerful LZW method is #4,558,302.
He goes on to say, however, that LZW lacks adaptive table reset
and other features in compress, and so may not apply.]
The implications of this are that no one may produce the same
output as compress produces, regardless of the program that produced
that output, without being subject to the patent. I.e., it is independent
of the actually coding used, unlike copyright. Therefore, all of the PD
versions of compress are currently in violation, as is BSD.
Representatives of Unisys at the POSIX.2 meetings claimed that
the Unisys Legal Department is pursuing the licensing of compress. In fact,
unlike copyright or trade secret protection, patent protection does not
diminish because the holder of the patent is not diligent in seeking damages
or preventing unauthorized use. Witness the large royalty payout by
Japanese semiconductor companies to Texas Instruments because they held
the patent on the concept of something as fundamental as integrated circuits.
This licence payout spans a period of over 20 years. In addition,
Unisys representatives claim that Phil Karn's PKZIP, which uses the
LZW compression algorithm, is a licenced user of the Unisys patent and
that a fee (rumoured to be somewhere in the $10,000 to $20,000 US range)
has been paid up front in lieu of individual royalties.
The ramifications for POSIX.2a are unclear. Currently, there are members
of the working group that say that they would object if a patented
algorithm were required by the standard if ANY FEE WHATSOEVER (even if $1)
were required to use it. (There are, however, precedents for standards
working in areas of patents in such areas as networking, modems, and
hardware bus structures. It appears that we software people have not
"grown up" as much when it comes to issues of licensing. Who has ever
hear of "public domain hardware"?) Some people suggested that Unisys
should allow relatively free use of the patent but should profit from
publicity rights from a citation in every POSIX.2a product manual that
contains compress. Therefore, there are currently negotiations underway
to see what kind of "special deal" Unisys would be willing to cut for the
use strictly in implementations of POSIX.2a. Depending on the outcome
of these negotiations, compress would either be dropped, re-engineered,
or retained.
Volume-Number: Volume 20, Number 101domo@tsa.co.uk (Dominic Dunlop) (07/06/90)
From: Dominic Dunlop <domo@tsa.co.uk> >From: jsh@usenix.org (Jeffrey S. Haemer) quoting Randall Howard > > The ramifications [of the fact that the LZ and LZW compression >algorithms are patented ] for POSIX.2a are unclear. Currently, there >are members of the working group that say that they would object if a >patented >algorithm were required by the standard if ANY FEE WHATSOEVER >(even if $1) were required to use it. (There are, however, precedents >for standards working in areas of patents in such areas as networking, >modems, and hardware bus structures. It appears that we software people >have not "grown up" as much when it comes to issues of licensing. For the record, from (normative) Annex A of IEC/ISO Directives -- Part 2: Methodology, 1989: If, in exceptional cases, technical reasons justify the preparation of an International Standard in terms which include that use of a patented item, there is no objection in principle to such a step, even if the terms are such that there is no alternative means of compliance. In such a case, the following procedures shall be complied with. a) ISO and IEC cannot give authoritative or comprehensive information about evidence, validity and scope of patent and like rights but it is desirable that the fullest information be disclosed. Therefore the originator of a proposal of such a kind shall draw the technical committee's or subcommittee's attention to any known patent and like rights on a worldwide basis or any known pending applications, although ISO and IEC are not in a position to guarantee the authority of any such information. b) If the proposal is accepted on technical grounds, the originator shall ask any known patent holder for a statement that he would be willing to negotiate licences under patent and like rights for applicants throughout the world on reasonable terms and conditions. A record of the patent holder's statement shall be placed in the files of the ISO Central Secretariat or the IEC Central Office, as appropriate, and shall be referred to in the relevant international standard. If the patent holder does not provide such a statement, the technical committee shall not proceed with the inclusion of the patented item unless the respective Council gives permission. c) Should it be revealed after publication of the International Standard that licences under a patent and like rights cannot be obtained under reasonable terms and conditions, the International Standard shall be referred back to the technical committee for further consideration. (The Councils of IEC and ISO are defined as ``the ultimate authority for the technical work...'') And from section 7, IEEE Standards Manual, April 1988: 7. Patents There is no objection in principle to drafting a proposed IEEE standard in terms that include the use of a patented item, if it is considered that technical reasons justify this approach. 7.1 Disclaimer The following note shall appear in all IEEE standards: ``IEEE standards documents are adopted by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers without regard to whether their adoption may involve patents on articles, materials, or processes. Such adoption does not assume any liability to any patent owner, nor does it assume any obligation to any parties whatever adopting the standards documents.'' (This note duly appears in IEEE Std. 1003.1:1988, facing the title page.) Think I prefer ISO's cautious but realistic approach to the IEEE's mere shrugging off of any blame for any consequences whatever of any action it cares to take. -- Dominic Dunlop Volume-Number: Volume 20, Number 109