The GIF Format is Finally Patent-Free 369
tonymercmobily writes "Not many people noticed that the GIF file format is only now free from patents, as of the 1st of October 2006. Quick recap: first in 1999 Unisys tried to extort money from users and developers. Then, in 2003 the world hoped that the saga would finally be over. Then, in 2004, it was IBM's turn. Now, the SAGA seems to be over for real! Does anybody find Unisys' page on GIF as hilarious as I do...?"
Hilarious? USPTO is Hilarious (Score:5, Interesting)
What I find genuinely hilarious, however, is the United State of America's Patent System.
Re:Just in time... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:...but it's not obsolete. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just in time... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm sure a big supporter of PNG, but understand why GIF is still around.
You mention that they are limited to 256 colors, but I think the real strength is that they can be limited to as few as two colors (or one and a transparency.) You can get crisp effects where they are needed (like black and white line art, or text) much better than the JPEG (which will do its best to bleed, in an effort to make the image look more like a photograph.)
It's also far more compact-- which is less of a concern for the end user now that dial-up modems are the exception rather than the rule, but can be a boon for a site concerned with bandwidth. And for simple animation it's far easier to create than a flash banner.
I prefer PNG myself-- but it's amazing how many users still have browsers that don't support it. Hell, it's amazing how many users don't have browsers that support flash for that matter. GIFs will always have a place with those who know the strength of the format.
Re:killed the format (Score:3, Interesting)
Professional web designers should use the best tool for the job, not what's hip and trendy.
=Smidge=
Re:killed the format (Score:4, Interesting)
The only thing it's used for these days is cheesy animated banner ads, but that's quickly being replaced with flash and java stuff.
First, that's just not true. Go to major web sites, look at the source, and search for ".gif". They're all over the fricken place. And who in their right mind would use Java for a bannar ad? I haven't noticed this, but the idea is completely retarded. Flash--- well Flash has its own problems. You need an expensive program to make them, and a special plug-in to view them. They can be better for certain purposes, especially if you want your ad to be interactive somehow, but if you just want to make a slideshow of completely different images, you're not going to beat animated GIFs for ease, or even size.
Professional Web developers, if they're any good, will use the proper tools for the job, and try to maximize compatibility as much as possible across different browsers. Use of plain HTML, CSS, JPEGs, and GIFs should be used the their maximum capability before looking to Javascript, and certainly before Java or Flash.
Re:what kind of jerk are you (Score:2, Interesting)
Are you an skillfull troll, or an ignorant ass? Sometimes it's hard to tell.
The 'vendors' did pay licensing, until something better came along (png). Thanks to Unisys contracts* though, Microsoft never provided proper support for PNG.
* Ask yourself why Microsoft never had to pay gif licensing fees when everyone else did, and PNG alpha layer support stayed broken through 3 versions of Internet Explorer.
Re:Just in time... (Score:3, Interesting)
from the linked page:
So what they're saying is that you can create multiple loops and script them up or something? Whoop de doo. GIF allows you to say something can loop an unlimited number of times. If you were an idiot, you might generate an unlimited number of frames from that.
Sounds to me more like libmng is lame.
Re:Patents, the world, and Certicom (Score:3, Interesting)
The worst thing, in my mind, is the fact that some of these things are ambiguous, and there's a lot of misinformation out there. Take MP3, for example: I've heard from lots of people that you need to buy a license to use MP3, or you'll get sued. A little research, and it seems that there are lots of people who own patents related to MP3, and one of these companies which holds one of these patents has said that they want to get paid. Now, as far as I can tell, (and IANAL), this only applies to people who are selling encoders and decoders, but as an end-user, there's nothing to fear. I'm not clear as to whether anyone is actually being sued over this, but apparently it's the reason why a lot of Linux distros don't ship with MP3 support included (e.g. Fedora).
So the fact that there's a patent bothers me a little, but it might be fair enough. However, either way, it bothers me that there's this tremendous level of ambiguity. I know that nobody is going to sue me for using an MP3 encoder I didn't pay for, but is there some way in which it's technically illegal? Do these distros really need to pay a license or not? And even if you pay the one company who is trying to enforce their patent, what about all the other companies? Could they suddenly decide to enforce their patent, even hypothetically? Would someone then need to send various licensing fees to various companies?
The whole thing just seems too convoluted. If someone can't come out and say very clearly what's legal and fine, and what isn't, then it seems to me that there's something wrong with the law. As it is, it's like they just want everyone to buy a license "just in case" without really specifying who is supposed to buy a license.
Re:Just in time... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd only count the lack of animation as a cause. Microsoft hasn't done anything to hamper PNG as a GIF replacement. IE has been able to read indexed PNGs (<=256 colors) with binary transparency for years. That's identical in capabilities to a static GIF.
For a GIF-equivalent PNG, you have to go all the way back to Netscape 4 and IE 3 to run into compatibility problems. There may be a lingering perception of compatibility issues, but it's extremely outdated.
Microsoft is to blame for making it tricky to use PNG's wider range of features -- like alpha transparency and lossless 24-bit color -- on the web. For that reason I'm hoping IE7 will quickly supplant IE6 where possible, and Firefox and Opera will supplant it elsewhere.
I suppose with IE preventing PNG from showing off its advantages, the choice ends up looking like a case of "different, not better." Though in my experience I can usually get the same image to compress better with PNG than GIF, giving PNG a small technical advantage to go with the finally-no-longer-relevant philosophical/legal advantages.
Re:well (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, and smoking helps your lungs learn to work under difficult conditions, beating your children helps toughen their hides, and driving a Hummer helps innovation in new fuel sources by using up available gasoline faster. It's all good.
I also like how PNG is "the new recommendation" to Unisys, in 2003.