cs326ag@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) (02/22/91)
I just saw the article repeated below in gnu.announce:
<begin included article>
Article 71 of gnu.announce:
Path: ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!shelby!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unreplyable!garbage
From: gnulists@AI.MIT.EDU (GNU Mailing List Maintainence)
Newsgroups: gnu.announce
Subject: [jkh@meepmeep.pcs.com: AT&T Claims patent on part of MIT's X11 server.]
Message-ID: <9102220300.AA24170@rice-chex>
Date: 22 Feb 91 03:00:42 GMT
Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
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
Lines: 93
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
<end included article>
Seems like this `back store' patent would also cover some aspects
of intuition. Jordan even wonders about other window systems that
use `back store'. Anyone care to commment?
Loren J. Rittle
--
``NewTek stated that the Toaster *would not* be made to directly support the
Mac, at this point Sculley stormed out of the booth...'' -A scene at the
recent MacExpo. Gee, you wouldn't think that an Apple Exec would be so
worried about one little Amiga Device... Loren J. Rittle l-rittle@uiuc.edubsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk (Brian J Syme IE88) (02/22/91)
[mind frying thingy about AT&T's asenine stuffed shirt department trying to shaft everyone using X windows or just about any window system ever, jeezus h. christ there are people that would try to patent wiping your ass!] Wow. This cannot be serious! YIPPPEEEE!!! Maybe, just maybe, it's an oooo so slim chance, and it's got it's downside, but possibly this could be the beginning of the end of X windows.. the ugliest windowing system I have ever set eyes on (the code, not the output). I mean have you SEEN the source for the sample X-server? Huuurgh, blup. Grruuuuggghhh. The people that wrote that muck should be in a rubber room. :-) -- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> <> Brian Syme <> Why make things difficult, when with just a <> <> bsyme@cs.strath.ac.uk <> little more effort you could make them <> <> <> impossible. Oh. I see you already have. <> <><><><><> *WARNING* Signature dying of old age... ><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
jms@vanth.UUCP (Jim Shaffer) (02/24/91)
In article <1991Feb22.090412.28321@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> cs326ag@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) writes: > >Seems like this `back store' patent would also cover some aspects >of intuition. Jordan even wonders about other window systems that >use `back store'. Anyone care to commment? I remember hearing something about this a few months ago (probably in alt.folklore.computers) and thinking "Nah, they wouldn't *really* do that, would they? It's just too incredibly brain-damaged." Live and learn, I guess. Just for the record, I think that there are a lot of things that are just TOO DAMN SIMPLE to deserve a patent, and I'm appalled that someone would have the audacity to even *apply* for a patent on such a thing, let alone that it would actually be granted! I think someone also mentioned at the time that implementing a cursor by XOR-ing was patented by someone, though I don't know who. See previous paragraph for this one, too. [My own opinions above. This node is owned and operated by myself.] -- * From the disk of: | jms@vanth.uucp | "Glittering prizes and Jim Shaffer, Jr. | amix.commodore.com!vanth!jms | endless compromises 37 Brook Street | 72750.2335@compuserve.com | shatter the illusion of Montgomery, PA 17752 | (CompuServe as a last resort)| integrity!" (Rush)
bartonr@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (RTFM) (02/24/91)
In article <1991Feb22.090412.28321@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> cs326ag@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) writes: >Seems like this `back store' patent would also cover some aspects of intuition. Would someone care to explain what this "back store" is? ================================================================================
cs326ag@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) (02/24/91)
In article <1748@pdxgate.UUCP> bartonr@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (RTFM) writes: >In article <1991Feb22.090412.28321@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> cs326ag@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) writes: >>Seems like this `back store' patent would also cover some aspects of intuition. > > Would someone care to explain what this "back store" is? > >================================================================================ Sure, I'd love to... And I can explain it in plain terms too! Mac and many others (let's not single them out, I'm just sure you have at least seen one of these... :-) --- When a window comes to the front, the application gets requests to rebuild the parts of the window that were exposed... ...the Mac does not have `back store' or as some would say, `backing store' Amiga and others (X 11R[34] comes to mind) --- When a window comes to the front (or any piece is exposed), the low level graphics subsystem can replace the bits in the window that are now visible (became exposed) because it kept a `back' (where the term `backing store' comes from, I would guess) up of the hidden parts of the window. And if any drawing commands would have accessed those hidden areas they *were* updated (in the back store area). Loren J. Rittle -- ``NewTek stated that the Toaster *would not* be made to directly support the Mac, at this point Sculley stormed out of the booth...'' -A scene at the recent MacExpo. Gee, you wouldn't think that an Apple Exec would be so worried about one little Amiga Device... Loren J. Rittle l-rittle@uiuc.edu
dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) (02/25/91)
cs326ag@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Loren J. Rittle) writes: >Amiga and others (X 11R[34] comes to mind) --- >When a window comes to the front (or any piece is exposed), >the low level graphics subsystem can replace the bits in the >window that are now visible (became exposed) because it kept >a `back' (where the term `backing store' comes from, I would guess) >up of the hidden parts of the window. And if any drawing commands >would have accessed those hidden areas they *were* updated (in the >back store area). Well hell, lets get a bunch of us together and patent the art of walking. Its about as abstract as the backing store concept. Then we can millions sueing every pedistrian in the world... BTW, does anyone think that AT&T can make a viable claim off this? -- dean@coplex.UUCP Dean A. Brooks Copper Electronics, Inc. Louisville, Ky UUCP: !uunet!coplex!dean
dave@cs.arizona.edu (Dave P. Schaumann) (02/25/91)
In article <1991Feb24.175524.20105@coplex.uucp> dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) writes: >Well hell, lets get a bunch of us together and patent the art of >walking. Its about as abstract as the backing store concept. >Then we can millions sueing every pedistrian in the world... No way. I thought of it first. I've got dibs. >BTW, does anyone think that AT&T can make a viable claim off this? Probably depends on how much they want to pay their lawyers, how much negative publicity they want to endure, and how determined the opposition is. Surely there are a lot of windowing systems out there that use this concept, and AT&T would annoy *a lot* of people if they pursued this suit. >dean@coplex.UUCP Dean A. Brooks ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) BTW, I've just discovered no-one has patented the return key or the space bar, so I've done it myself. Anyone who doesn't want to get sued should contact me for liscencing agreements, or desist using them immediately... ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) ;-) -- Dave Schaumann | Is this question undecidable? dave@cs.arizona.edu |
zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) (02/25/91)
In article <1991Feb24.175524.20105@coplex.uucp> dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) writes: >BTW, does anyone think that AT&T can make a viable claim off this? No, they can't. However, there are a whole lot of companies out there that would rather spend the money on the "license" than spend a whole lot of money on lawyers to challenge the inevitable suit from AT&T. AT&T is simply gambling that everybody will meekly pay up. Obviously, this will have serious detrimental effects on users. Either they will pay more for their packages, or they will get software with inferior performance. This is the problem with litigation over software. Most people don't even argue about it, even when it is wrong. It's cheaper to just pay up. It is not the direct effects on companies that is really harmful, but rather the stifling, indirect effects that slow down innovation, and prevent people from using good ideas in their products. In this particular case, it might be worth challenging. If anybody can show that there was any kind of a system before 1985 (the date of AT&T's patent) that used a backing store, it will be provable that the idea was widely known before the patent, and therefore the idea is not patentable. Come to think of it, there is a certain system that uses a backing store for its windows, and it came out right around 1985.... Dan Zerkle zerkle@iris.eecs.ucdavis.edu (916) 754-0240 Amiga... Because life is too short for boring computers.
jgay@digi.lonestar.org (john gay) (02/26/91)
From article <8428@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, by zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle): > In article <1991Feb24.175524.20105@coplex.uucp> dean@coplex.uucp (Dean Brooks) writes: > >>BTW, does anyone think that AT&T can make a viable claim off this? > > No, they can't. However, there are a whole lot of companies out there Unfortunately, yes they can. They way the patent system works today they can. There are quite a few current patents that are obvious that have been upheld in court. Among these is the XOR cursor technique that Cadtrak "owns" even though it was used years before the patent was granted and is considered an obvious technique by most software people. The irony of the AT&T patent is that it was used by MIT in the Lisp Machine System way before AT&T patented it. Since it was not documented very well, this may not count as prior art. BTW, there is also a rumor that the use of include files (#include <stdio.h>) has been patented. At this time it is just a rumor, but a very persistent one. For more info see the "Software Patents" article in the November 1990 issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal. Also check the gnu groups for on going discussions. Then get pissed and join The League for Programming Freedom and write your congress person and senator. If you don't, you may end up having to either write software only for a very large company (one that can afford the legal hassle (cost, big $$) of patent searches, cross-licensing, etc. or work in a different country in order to avoid some of the patent bullshit. Of course this will be limited to the countries that don't have or recognize algorithmic and software patents. john gay. No, I don't speak for my company (they don't even know that I can speak).
eachus@aries.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) (02/26/91)
Very interesting...but AT&T is stupid (couldn't resist)...
Actually the Amiga has two mechanisms for doing window overlaps.
When the graphics chips mix images on the fly from various bit-maps in
memory, it does not violate this patent (actually it is impossible to
infringe an invalid patent but...) When you use simple refresh, the
layers library does the sort of slice and dice that this patent
describes, but I'm not sure if the algorithms are the same.
In any case, I think both Sun and Xerox probably have sufficent
prior art.
We need a better way to recognize the technical innovations of
software developers, but this type of patent sure ain't it.
--
Robert I. Eachus
Our troops will have the best possible support in the entire
world. And they will not be asked to fight with one hand tied behind
their back. President George Bush, January 16, 1991zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) (02/27/91)
In article <1991Feb25.161416.4349@digi.lonestar.org> jgay@digi.lonestar.org (john gay) writes: >Then get pissed and join The League for Programming Freedom and write >your congress person and senator. Can someone post information on the League? I've heard of it but I don't know how to join. Dan Zerkle zerkle@iris.eecs.ucdavis.edu (916) 754-0240 Amiga... Because life is too short for boring computers.
davidm@uunet.UU.NET (David S. Masterson) (02/28/91)
>>>>> On 27 Feb 91 03:35:34 GMT, zerkle@iris.ucdavis.edu (Dan Zerkle) said: Dan> In article <1991Feb25.161416.4349@digi.lonestar.org> Dan> jgay@digi.lonestar.org (john gay) writes: John> Then get pissed and join The League for Programming Freedom and write John> your congress person and senator. Dan> Can someone post information on the League? I've heard of it but I don't Dan> know how to join. Just post something in gnu.misc.discuss. You should get more than you want on the League. -- ==================================================================== David Masterson Consilium, Inc. (415) 691-6311 640 Clyde Ct. uunet!cimshop!davidm Mtn. View, CA 94043 ==================================================================== "If someone thinks they know what I said, then I didn't say it!"
burley@geech.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) (03/01/91)
I think sending email to league@prep.ai.mit.edu asking for info will get you information on the League for Programming Freedom. -- James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson burley@ai.mit.edu