Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!lethe!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!orca!es.com!bpendlet From: bpendlet@es.com (Bob Pendleton) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: AT&T Claims patent on part of MIT's X11 server. Message-ID: <1991Feb28.182409.19192@dsd.es.com> Date: 28 Feb 91 18:24:09 GMT References: <9102231551.AA01386@lightning.McRCIM.McGill.EDU> <1991Feb25.163318.14659@dsl.pitt.edu> Sender: usenet@dsd.es.com Reply-To: bpendlet@dsd.es.com Organization: Evans & Sutherland Design Systems Lines: 23 Nntp-Posting-Host: 130.187.85.33 In article <1991Feb25.163318.14659@dsl.pitt.edu>, sean@dsl.pitt.edu (Sean McLinden) writes: |> Frankly, I doubt that they have the resources to press this issue |> if everyone simply ignored it. Besides being a technical miscalculation |> this may be one of the bigger public relations blunders that I've |> seen in a long time. You obviously have no idea just how big AT&T is and the kinds of damages they could collect if you "simply ignore it." I suspect that many vendors will simply delete the backing store code from their servers and promise AT&T that they won't ever turn it back on. I've never had it turned on in any of the servers I've worked on because it isn't worth didly if your frame buffer has more than just a few planes. It takes way to much memory when you have 96 bit pixels. -- Bob Pendleton, speaking only for myself. bpendlet@dsd.es.com or decwrl!esunix!bpendlet or utah-cs!esunix!bpendlet Tools, not rules.