Comment Am I missing something here ? (Score 1) 323
I might be wrong here, but it seems everyone is throwing stones at the wrong target.
Why are so many people trashing Unisys over the LZW patent and their general evil in wanting money to create and view GIF's when that that's been done before over and over again.
The NEW point here is that they seem to want money even when you are NOT using the LZW algorithm.
I've been having a few days correspondence with the much maligned and newly famous Cheryl. It takes overnight because I'm down-under in Australia. I've been trying to get a clearer idea of their claim, I waiting for a reply to my latest letter. (given its midday in Oz Cheryl is, I hope, not at work at the moment) :
=section from my latest letter=
Does that mean Unisys are claiming royalties/licenses from John in the following scenario?
John operates a Web Server distributing GIF files, on that server (and associated computers) NO software (licensed or unlicensed) using LZW algorithms is run.
Mary created those GIF files with software that uses unlicensed LZW algorithms.
============
And this, it seem to me, is the whole point. Forget about how the GIF's were created, forget whether its freeware, gimp, licensed or whatever. Surely they hold only a patent on the LZW algorithm, and can only claim on people that use it. Are they really claiming that you have to pay them even when you don't use it ? Remember you don't need photoshop to simply copy files.
I'm not for one minute imagining that the convolutions of the US legal system may not let them do just this. Stranger things than this seem to happen all the time over there (just look at the music industry) to this observer from the other side of the planet. And yes, I don't really think that they should be able to patent an algorithm either, but your law says they can, argue it with courts as well as Unisys.
But this keep your eye on the point that should be in dispute, and its not Unisys's original claim on LZW and the graphic software that uses it. In the above John and Mary scenario, you can't argue that Mary doesn't owe them money/license/royalty, given the current laws. Sure you may not think she should, but forget Mary.
The whole point is: WHAT ABOUT JOHN? He's not using any Unisys product, why should he have to pay?
Mark
Why are so many people trashing Unisys over the LZW patent and their general evil in wanting money to create and view GIF's when that that's been done before over and over again.
The NEW point here is that they seem to want money even when you are NOT using the LZW algorithm.
I've been having a few days correspondence with the much maligned and newly famous Cheryl. It takes overnight because I'm down-under in Australia. I've been trying to get a clearer idea of their claim, I waiting for a reply to my latest letter. (given its midday in Oz Cheryl is, I hope, not at work at the moment) :
=section from my latest letter=
Does that mean Unisys are claiming royalties/licenses from John in the following scenario?
John operates a Web Server distributing GIF files, on that server (and associated computers) NO software (licensed or unlicensed) using LZW algorithms is run.
Mary created those GIF files with software that uses unlicensed LZW algorithms.
============
And this, it seem to me, is the whole point. Forget about how the GIF's were created, forget whether its freeware, gimp, licensed or whatever. Surely they hold only a patent on the LZW algorithm, and can only claim on people that use it. Are they really claiming that you have to pay them even when you don't use it ? Remember you don't need photoshop to simply copy files.
I'm not for one minute imagining that the convolutions of the US legal system may not let them do just this. Stranger things than this seem to happen all the time over there (just look at the music industry) to this observer from the other side of the planet. And yes, I don't really think that they should be able to patent an algorithm either, but your law says they can, argue it with courts as well as Unisys.
But this keep your eye on the point that should be in dispute, and its not Unisys's original claim on LZW and the graphic software that uses it. In the above John and Mary scenario, you can't argue that Mary doesn't owe them money/license/royalty, given the current laws. Sure you may not think she should, but forget Mary.
The whole point is: WHAT ABOUT JOHN? He's not using any Unisys product, why should he have to pay?
Mark
