larry@csccat.UUCP (Larry Spence) (02/01/90)
In article <1701@adobe.UUCP> hollin@adobe.UUCP (Benjamin Hollin) writes: > >- Note that the protection of intellectual property does not mean > suppression of competition (thanks Elliott). Copyrighting Adobe's Garamond > font is no different from copyrighting, for example, Illustrator88. This > does not prevent someone from writing a font program to render their own > version of Garamond, or any other letterform. Quoting InfoWorld quoting John Warnock, 1/29/90: "If a company were to come out with a typeface program that had the same design *and rendering* as the Adobe typeface, then we would have grounds to sue them for copyright infringement on the basis that their methods for rendering the typeface -- and not the design -- were similar [to Adobe's]." Ack! I'm confused again! It seems to me that there would be an infinite number of methods for creating the same bitmap. Is duplication of the "behavior" (bitmap appearance at different sizes, rotations, etc.) of a typeface taken to imply duplication of rendering mechanism? How exact does the duplication of behavior have to be before it implies similar rendering mechanisms, IF such a thing can be implied from a bitmap? And what if the design of a face is slightly different (which is often the case among variations from different vendors), but the hinting behavior is the same, or nearly so? What if Vendor X comes out with faces that Adobe or Bitstream don't offer, but with hinting behavior that is similar to what might be obtained with Adobe's rendering, IF they offered such a face? Is it legit until Adobe or Bitstream do come out with that face, and then illegal? The impression that I'm getting is that the copyright protects Adobe's hinting code, which is now or will soon be widely available. If this is the case, then certainly radically different CODE could produce the same hinting behavior. Is it therefore really an ALGORITHM that has been copyrighted, or is it merely duplication of the Adobe source code? I would think (naively, perhaps) that Adobe should have applied for a PATENT on their hinting mechanisms. Is this copyright a devious way of doing this? What if a developer wanted to write a drawing program that could produce general procedural graphics, which might include what is called "hinting" as a subset? Is use of the Adobe hinting mechanism in general prohibited? I would think not, since the copyright was for a specific typeface program. One question that has been answered is that the DESIGN of a typeface is still NOT protected, so type designers are still screwed. As I suspected, the digital type houses are the ones who benefit. One could argue that protecting Adobe helps protect designers, but as resolutions get higher, things like hinting will become less necessary. Even now, you certainly don't need hints at 1000 dpi and up. In other words, does design == rendering at high resolutions? I would think so. So on your Lino, typefaces are in effect unprotected from duplication. -- Larry Spence larry@csccat ...{texbell,texsun,attctc}!csccat!larry
murphyn@cell.mot.COM (Neal P. Murphy) (02/01/90)
larry@csccat.UUCP (Larry Spence) writes: >In article <1701@adobe.UUCP> hollin@adobe.UUCP (Benjamin Hollin) writes: ... >Quoting InfoWorld quoting John Warnock, 1/29/90: >"If a company were to come out with a typeface program that had the same >design *and rendering* as the Adobe typeface, then we would have grounds >to sue them for copyright infringement on the basis that their methods >for rendering the typeface -- and not the design -- were similar [to >Adobe's]." >Ack! I'm confused again! It seems to me that there would be an infinite >number of methods for creating the same bitmap. Is duplication of the >"behavior" (bitmap appearance at different sizes, rotations, etc.) of a >typeface taken to imply duplication of rendering mechanism? How exact ... I think a lot of this all boils down to one word: *capitalism*. If Adobe really wants to protect its intellectual property, then it must employ pricing and supply tactics that ensure that their customers (potential and otherwise) will find it more economical to purchase their (Adobe's) product. If Adobe sets the price too high, it will encourage others to create their own fonts, in the belief that they can create them cheaper than it would cost to buy them. Then, Adobe would have to be sure that if the font program is a copy of one of theirs, Adobe would have to use the legal system to force the competitor to cease and desist (with that font). If you price yourself out of the market, then that's precisely where you'll be. If you price competitively, you still need to watch out for zealous competitors who would steal your product and sell it as their own. One means of protecting yourself is by being the first to get the government to recognise that yours is a unique product and deserves the protection of the society you live and work in. NPN
batcheldern@hannah.enet.dec.com (Ned Batchelder) (02/02/90)
> I'm not a lawyer, but this information may help clear this up a bit: > > - Fonts CAN BE trademarked. In fact Linotype and ITC own the trademarks for > many of the fonts that Adobe has converted to Type 1 format and marketed. > Adobe licenses these from the trademark holders, so the comment that > typeface designers are not being protected (while Adobe and digital type > foundries are) is incorrect. Wrong. Fonts CANNOT be trademarked. Font NAMES can be trademarked. Linotype and ITC, and all the others own trademarks on the names of their fonts, which protects them from competitors selling fonts under the same name. That's the reason you see Helvetica look-alikes called Swiss. The design is probably very faithful (to use a positive word) to the original Helvetica, but they aren't allowed to call it Helvetica, because Helvetica is a registered trademark of Allied Corporation. Perhaps the confusion comes from the punctuation commonly used. It should be written as "Helvetica" is a registered trademark of Allied Corporation Ned Batchelder, Digital Equipment Corp., BatchelderN@Hannah.enet.DEC.com
jeynes@adobe.COM (Ross A. Jeynes) (02/02/90)
I'm not very good with legal jargon, but there has been a lot of discussion about this lately. This is my understanding of the copyright decision: In article <3517@csccat.UUCP> larry@csccat writes: >The impression that I'm getting is that the copyright protects Adobe's >hinting code, which is now or will soon be widely available. If this is The copyright protects the Adobe ITC Garamond Font Computer Program, written in the PostScript language, not the hints. >the case, then certainly radically different CODE could produce the same >hinting behavior. Is it therefore really an ALGORITHM that has been >copyrighted, or is it merely duplication of the Adobe source code? I >would think (naively, perhaps) that Adobe should have applied for a >PATENT on their hinting mechanisms. There isn't hinting "code" per se in the fonts; there is hinting data. I think we probably have applied for a patent on our hinting technology, though I'm not sure of this. >Is this copyright a devious way of doing this? No, it's really a pretty straightforward move to prevent piracy of our fonts. Since you can't copyright the typeface itself, we copyrighted the program that draws the font. This means that we have legal recourse against those who are blatantly stealing our intellectual property. The intent of the copyright is to protect what we have developed, not to flood the courts with lawsuits. >What if a developer wanted to write a drawing program that >could produce general procedural graphics, which might include what is >called "hinting" as a subset? Is use of the Adobe hinting mechanism >in general prohibited? Use of the Adobe hinting mechanism won't be prohibited. When the Type 1 spec is available, developers will be able to produce fonts that use the Adobe hinting machinery. As far as I can tell, having more designers produce PostScript fonts will only make PostScript printers more desirable. I think this is something that we want to encourage. >One question that has been answered is that the DESIGN of a typeface >is still NOT protected, so type designers are still screwed. As I That's true, the Copyright Office considers font outlines to be data, and therefore not copyrightable. However, the name of the typeface can be copyrighted. Using the "real" or "licensed" typeface has some prestige associated with it. Using the original designer's font presumably preserves the original design intentions. Not everyone cares about the "feel" of a font, so clone fonts (cheaper fonts?) will probably become more common for those who aren't willing to pay for the name/quality of the original design. Ross Jeynes Developer Support jeynes@adobe.com Adobe Systems Incorporated {sun|decwrl}!adobe!jeynes
woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) (02/04/90)
In article <1735@adobe.UUCP>, jeynes@adobe.COM (Ross A. Jeynes) writes: > > I think we probably have applied for a patent on our hinting technology, > though I'm not sure of this. Hmmmm, when you disclose the hinting mechanism, this might really bolix things up One other thing, Name does NOT equal quality.... Cheers Woody
chesnutt@adobe.com (Stan Chesnutt) (02/05/90)
In article <17859@rpp386.cactus.org> woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) writes: >In article <1735@adobe.UUCP>, jeynes@adobe.COM (Ross A. Jeynes) writes: >> >> I think we probably have applied for a patent on our hinting technology, >> though I'm not sure of this. > >Hmmmm, when you disclose the hinting mechanism, this might really bolix >things up > Not really. To patent a process or device, you must fully describe the technique or mechanism. This description is used by patent attorneys to see if somebody hasn't already filed a patent using the same technique. The description is also filed by the Patent Office, and is available to interested parties. This filing is available to courts, for example, to try cases of patent infringement. Thus, Adobe couldn't have patented it's font hinting technology, as it would then be open to public scrutiny via the Patent Office. Rather, it has probably been considered "trade secret" information, which, as I understand, means that the information can be protected via non-disclosure agreements. It may have been possible for Adobe to patent the techniques in the past. I am not sure what sort of byzantine criteria qualify something as patentable. However, if a patent were awarded, the information can no longer be secret. As part of releasing the hinting techniques, Adobe may or may not have tried to patent specific methods. I have no idea what efforts are been made. Incidentally, the local (Silicon Valley) patent office, I hear, is mostly frequented by representatives of Japanese companies... Note: While I do work for Adobe, I have only social contact with the people who decide our legal position on patentable and disclosable materials. Thus, the preceding message is based entirely upon conjecture and my own sketchy knowledge of patent law. If anybody has a firmer grasp of the concepts involved, please chime in. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stan Chesnutt, Adobe Systems chesnutt@adobe.com {sun|decwrl}!adobe!chesnutt the intersection of this posting and company policies is likely nil
friedl@mtndew.UUCP (Steve Friedl) (02/11/90)
In article <17859@rpp386.cactus.org> woody@rpp386.cactus.org (Woodrow Baker) writes: >Hmmmm, when you disclose the hinting mechanism, this might really bolix >things up [patented hints] > In article <1746@adobe.UUCP>, chesnutt@adobe.com (Stan Chesnutt) writes: > Not really. To patent a process or device, you must fully describe the > technique or mechanism. True, but in many counties the details of a patent >must< remain secret until the patent is actually granted, and release of the info prematurely is grounds to disallow the patent. I suspect that many companies patenting "important" things want to get all the patents granted before they release any of the details. Once the patent is granted, then the details are of course released so we can know what to avoid. Related to this, "patented secret" -- a common phrase used by snake oil salesmen -- is meaningless. Steve -- Stephen J. Friedl, KA8CMY / Software Consultant / Tustin, CA / 3B2-kind-of-guy +1 714 544 6561 voice / friedl@vsi.com / {uunet,attmail}!mtndew!friedl "Winning the Balridge Quality Award is as easy as falling off a horse." - me