Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!dali.cs.montana.edu!masscomp!westford.ccur.com!karenb From: karenb@westford.ccur.com (Karen Bircsak) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: compress patent Message-ID: <37223@masscomp.ccur.com> Date: 2 Aug 90 14:52:24 GMT Sender: news@masscomp.ccur.com Reply-To: karenb@westford.ccur.com (Karen Bircsak) Distribution: usa Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp. Westford MA. Lines: 127 There are rumours going around that the compress utility uses an algorithm patented by Unisys, and Unisys has decided that they may start prosecuting companies that use compress. Anybody out there know anything about this? Is it seriously a threat? (X11 uses compress for font files). ---Forwarded message from the emacs newsgroup--- From: think!rms@ai.mit.edu Newsgroups: emacs Subject: compress patent Date: 1 Aug 90 19:47:31 GMT Distribution: local Return-Path: To: info-gnu-emacs@prep.ai.mit.edu, info-gcc@prep.ai.mit.edu, info-gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu Cc: rms@ai.mit.edu I've heard that some people disbelieve that compress is patented. So I am sending this letter, which reportedly was printed in Dr. Dobbs, March 1990. > Dear DDJ, > In the "Letters" column of your December 1989 issue, Mark Nelson > discusses U.S. Patent 4,558,302 entitled ``High Speed Data Compression and > Decompression Apparatus and Method.'' The patent was developed by Terry > Welch, a former Unisys employee, and is owned by Unisys. According to Mr. > Nelson, I have been quoted as saying that Unisys will ``license the > algorithm for a one time fee of $20,000.'' As a concession to the modem > industry, Unisys has agreed to license the patent to modem manufacturers > for use in modems conforming to the V42.bis data compression standard > promulgated by CCITT, for a one-time fee of $20,000. This $20,000 license, > however, is not a general license under all applications of our patent but > is limited to the specific application discussed above. > Responding to the second paragraph of Nelson's remarks, Unisys is > actively looking into the possibility that a large number of software > developers may be infringing one or more of our data compression patents. > We have only recently become aware of these potential infringers and the > process of taking action will take some time. > Unisys is happy to accept inquiries from persons interested in acquiring > a license to U.S. Patent 4,558,302. If your readers have any further > questions, they should contact Mr. Edmund Chung of our licensing office, at > [Phone number deleted] > Robert S. Bramson > Unisys (I did not include the phone number because I would hate to be responsible for helping them get customers.) I first found out about the problem in the draft of the POSIX user portability extension standard (P1003.2a). They propose to make compress a requirement for POSIX despite the fact that it might be covered by this patent. I have quoted the relevant passage below. (Note that there are rumours that the POSIX committee is negotiating for royalty-free use of compress in POSIX systems, but Hal Jesperson, the chairman of the committee, has told me this is not so.) There is some disagreement as to whether the patent actually is valid, and whether it actually covers compress. Unisys says it does. The POSIX committee (in another part of 1003.2a) says the patent "seems to" apply. James Wood thinks it does not. Reportedly some computer companies think it does not. I cannot have an opinion--I am not the right kind of expert. But even if I were, I couldn't be certain. There's no certainty in what a judge will rule. The only thing we can be sure of is that there is a reasonable chance of being sued and losing. If Unisys doesn't sue us this year, they could sue us next year. And fighting in court would cost hundreds of thousands, even if we win. Therefore, I think it is best to kill off compress as a standard (even a de facto one) as soon as possible, since it will get harder with time. The more we become dependent on it, the more we are at a disadvantage in any negotiation or maneuvering. To those who argue the invalidity or inapplicability of the Unisys patent under the current legal system, I wish success. However, even supposing we are lucky this time, it is just a taste of what will happen over and over again. We have to solve the overall problem of software patents, or we will have to fight one patent after another, each at great expense, for the rest of our careers. From POSIX 1003.2a: 5.5 compress -- Compress data Editor's Note: There are patent issues associated with @code{compress}, @code{uncompress}, and @code{zcat}. The Lempel-Ziv-Welch algorithm described here may be covered by US patent 4 558 302, assigned to Unisys Corporation. We are in the process of obtaining a letter from the Unisys legal department that acknowledges POSIX.2's reference to the patented algorithm and commits to license the use of the algorithm to all POSIX.2a system providers on an unrestricted, equal-access basis for a "reasonable" fee. Such a letter would meet the IEEE's requirements for specifying patented technology in a standard. If this letter cannot be obtained, these three utilities will be dropped from the next draft. It is not possible for the P1003 group or the IEEE to negotiate with the patent holder on the specific terms of the license agreement or on the size of the reasonable fee; this might be considered a violation of US antitrust laws. It will be the responsibility of those providing POSIX.2a systems to deal directly with the patent holder. The IEEE allows reference to patented items if it is the consensus of the developers of a standards project to require those items for technical purposes within a standard. The IEEE Standards Manual states, in Section 7, that "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." The technical experts of the P1003.2a balloting group are asked to evaluate this technology on its technical suitability alone--does it properly fit within the scope of the proposed standard and meet all technical objectives? Since all issues concerning patent licensing are being resolved to the IEEE's satisfaction, ballot objections outside the technical domain will not be considered responsive. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ___________ / ________/__ ...!{decvax,uunet}!masscomp!karenb /__/_______/ / karenb@westford.ccur.com Concurrent /__________/ Computer Corporation --------------------------------------------------------------------------------