Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!csccat!larry
From: larry@csccat.UUCP (Larry Spence)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: Copyright of Coded Font Programs
Message-ID: <3517@csccat.UUCP>
Date: 31 Jan 90 23:18:44 GMT
References: <1701@adobe.UUCP>
Reply-To: larry@csccat.UUCP (Larry Spence)
Organization: Computer Support Corporation. Dallas,Texas
Lines: 57

In article <1701@adobe.UUCP> hollin@adobe.UUCP (Benjamin Hollin) writes:
>
>- Note that the protection of intellectual property does not mean
>  suppression of competition (thanks Elliott).  Copyrighting Adobe's Garamond
>  font is no different from copyrighting, for example, Illustrator88.  This
>  does not prevent someone from writing a font program to render their own
>  version of Garamond, or any other letterform.

Quoting InfoWorld quoting John Warnock, 1/29/90:

"If a company were to come out with a typeface program that had the same
design *and rendering* as the Adobe typeface, then we would have grounds
to sue them for copyright infringement on the basis that their methods
for rendering the typeface -- and not the design -- were similar [to 
Adobe's]."

Ack!  I'm confused again!  It seems to me that there would be an infinite 
number of methods for creating the same bitmap.  Is duplication of the
"behavior" (bitmap appearance at different sizes, rotations, etc.) of a 
typeface taken to imply duplication of rendering mechanism?  How exact
does the duplication of behavior have to be before it implies similar
rendering mechanisms, IF such a thing can be implied from a bitmap?
And what if the design of a face is slightly different (which is often 
the case among variations from different vendors), but the hinting 
behavior is the same, or nearly so?  What if Vendor X comes out with 
faces that Adobe or Bitstream don't offer, but with hinting behavior
that is similar to what might be obtained with Adobe's rendering, IF
they offered such a face?  Is it legit until Adobe or Bitstream do come
out with that face, and then illegal?

The impression that I'm getting is that the copyright protects Adobe's
hinting code, which is now or will soon be widely available.  If this is
the case, then certainly radically different CODE could produce the same
hinting behavior.  Is it therefore really an ALGORITHM that has been
copyrighted, or is it merely duplication of the Adobe source code?  I
would think (naively, perhaps) that Adobe should have applied for a
PATENT on their hinting mechanisms.  Is this copyright a devious way of
doing this?  What if a developer wanted to write a drawing program that
could produce general procedural graphics, which might include what is
called "hinting" as a subset?  Is use of the Adobe hinting mechanism
in general prohibited?  I would think not, since the copyright was for
a specific typeface program.

One question that has been answered is that the DESIGN of a typeface
is still NOT protected, so type designers are still screwed.  As I 
suspected, the digital type houses are the ones who benefit.  One could
argue that protecting Adobe helps protect designers, but as resolutions
get higher, things like hinting will become less necessary.  Even now,
you certainly don't need hints at 1000 dpi and up.  In other words, does
design == rendering at high resolutions?  I would think so.  So on your
Lino, typefaces are in effect unprotected from duplication.


-- 
Larry Spence
larry@csccat
...{texbell,texsun,attctc}!csccat!larry