Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!oswego!oswego.oswego.edu!dab From: dab@moxie.moxie.oswego.edu (David Alan Bozak) Newsgroups: comp.compression Subject: Re: LZW is *not* safe to use Message-ID: Date: 3 Apr 91 18:50:20 GMT References: <1991Mar25.215830.5200@nntp-server.caltech.edu> <1991Apr2.003452.27382@alembic.acs.com> <29014:Apr215:25:5191@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> Sender: news@oswego.oswego.edu (Network News) Reply-To: dab@moxie.oswego.edu Organization: SUNY Oswego Lines: 23 In-Reply-To: brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu's message of Tue Apr 2 15:25:51 GMT 1991 Dan Bernstein writes: There are *two* patent holders on LZW: Unisys, through Welch's patent, and IBM, through the Miller-Wegman patent. The IBM patent covers LZW, among other things, and was filed earlier than the Sperry patent. (Yes, this does mean the Sperry patent should not have been approved.) ok, my question is: has anyone a good summary of the events and arguments which have led up to the decision for a patent to be granted to Unisys? I really would like to find a good description of just how we ended up in the fix we are apparently in with regard to LZW. thanks. -dab -- /\ David Alan Bozak, Computer Science Department / \ SUNY Oswego, Oswego, NY 13126 (315) 341-2347 _____/____\_____ Internet: dab@moxie.oswego.edu / / \ \ or dab%moxie.oswego.edu@nisc.nyser.net /____/ \____\ UUCP: {cornell!devvax,rutgers!sunybcs}!oswego!moxie!dab