PNG Group Unconcerned About Apple's Patent 137
melquiades writes: "A recent story raised concerns that Apple's patent on some forms of alpha compositing was blocking the development of PNG, MNG and SVG. Not so, says Greg Roelofs, a member of the PNG group: 'The PNG group did discuss the Apple patent several weeks ago, and we decided it was completely irrelevant to PNG itself, almost certainly irrelevant to the pnmtopng utility and to PNGs animated extension, MNG, and probably irrelevant to SVG as well.' Here's the article on OS Opinion. So if it's not a big deal, why was there a general call for prior art to overturn Apple's patent? It looks like some PNG developers got worried, but the core team thinks there's no problem. Is this just a case of the right hand not knowing that the left hand is paranoid?" Once bitten, twice shy?
If Apple cared... (Score:1)
Re:If Apple cared... (Score:2, Insightful)
Leftover Paranoia (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not paranoia.... (Score:1)
Re:Its not paranoia.... (Score:1)
PNG's (Score:1)
Re:PNG's (Score:4, Funny)
Re:PNG's (Score:1)
Re:PNG's (Score:4, Interesting)
www.salon.com, www.userfriendly.org, yahoo.com, www.redhat.com, www.debian.org, www.gnu.org, and of course, www.slashdot.org.
So, who is using PNG?
Re:PNG's (Score:2, Informative)
Remove www.debian.org [debian.org] from your list. It does use .png images (and there are half a dozen of them on the main page, at least), just not exclusively.For that matter, including www.gnu.org [gnu.org] is somewhat unfair, as they pretty much only use the one image on the entire site, and although it's in jpeg format on the main page, it is also available in .png (in fact, the high resolution version is only available in .png). See http://www.gnu.org/graphics/agnuhead.html [gnu.org].
So who is using PNG? Some of the people you list as not using PNG.
(... mutter mutter ... moderators that don't check claims ... mutter mutter ...)
Re:PNG's (Score:1)
Re:PNG's (Score:2)
In my job as a web scripter, we can't use PNG, as policy dictates that we be compatible with as many browsers as possible. Netscape 4.x isn't compatible without a plugin, so it's a no go. That browser has caused more grief than all the others combines.
On the flip side, we can't use GD to generate GIFs, as there's no GIF support, so all we're left with are JPEGs with calculated backgrounds. No transparencies.
Re:PNG's (Score:2)
Ding! Wrong.
Communicator (4.76 anyway) does support PNGs. I know this because I can view my Webalizer output just fine with it. ;)
Re:PNG's (Score:2)
Well, think about it. x=any number, including 76 :)
For example, my PPPoE gateway runs FreeBSD 3.4. I could say that I'm running 3.x, and it supports PPPoE. However, I'd be wrong to do so, as versions of FreeBSD before 3.4 don't support PPPoE.
But I'd also be wrong to say FreeBSD 3.x doesn't support PPPoE. Tch :)
Re:PNG's (Score:2)
This is true, and regrettable; but to say that Communicator doesn't support PNG is akin to saying that Mosaic (before 2.0) didn't support GIF because, well, it didn't support any of the 89a extensions (at least AFAIR; Mosaic 2.0 BTW was the first Mosaic to support JPEG inline too).
Re:PNG's (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:PNG's (Score:3, Insightful)
There is practically no decent reason for any website to still be using GIF files as the conversion of both the html and files is pretty easy...
PNGs are also way technically better.
Re:PNG's (Score:1)
i stopped using Gif except where I needed transparency (and considering gif's lousy attempt at transparency that wasn't often) several years ago, as soon as IE started to work properly with PNG I abandoned GIF alltogether.
There are still lots of people who haven't heard of PNG, even in the web design and graphic arts fields, but for at least the artists just mentioning PNG's transparency abilities is enough to convert them.
(I really can't believe we put up with GIF as long as we did)
Re:thanks for nothing (Score:1)
Re:PNG's (Score:1)
Re:PNG's (Score:1)
Re:PNG's (Score:1)
Re:PNG's (Score:1)
Re:PNG's (Score:3, Interesting)
Just for the record (not that this is scientific or anything) my current ~/.netscape/cache has
Keenspot (Score:1)
Re:PNG's (Score:1)
Re:PNG's (Score:2)
Re:PNG's (Score:3, Interesting)
They're not intended to replace JPEG[*] they're best suited for application where you would use a GIF. As with GIF the compression is lossless and best for compressing line art and simple computer generated stuff.
In addition to GIF you also get:
* > 256 colours
* Full 8 bit alpha channel (but not in IE on Windows
Then there's MNG - for animated PNGs like animated GIFs and [*] JNG which in a PNG which internally uses uses JPEG compression and thus is pretty good with photos. These are more obscure though. I think JNG might allow transparency/alpha channel, which would be cool, as regular JPEG does not.
Re:PNG's (Score:1)
Re:PNG's (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:PNG's (Score:1)
Re:PNG's (Score:2)
Re:PNG's (Score:2, Interesting)
PNG is stealthily gaining acceptance. I think there are three reasons why PNG hasn't gone as far as it should have by now:
Re:PNG's (Score:1)
David
Prior Art (Score:1)
As I understand it... (Score:5, Informative)
As I recall, PNG and SVG both use alpha channels. That is, transparency data is stored as a part of the image's color encoding.
Alpha-masking is different. In this case, an image is defined in the "normal" RGB fashion. Along with it, a second image is stored, which has only alpha information in it, not color. You could say that an alpha channel is inline, whereas an alpha mask is not.
Is the patent ridiculous? Of course it is. But I don't think it would affect PNG and SVG anyway, because they use a different method of storing transparency information.
Re:As I understand it... (Score:1)
This technique is used to get those fancy transition effects in Final Cut and iMovie. It allows to implement a wide range of effects like wipes, fades, color effects etc. It can represent most effects which do not require pixel displacement. The big advantage is that you actually precompute the effects and then simply feed the resulting animated blending mask and the two video sources to some highly optimized code/hardware without the need of specific code for each effect.
Re:As I understand it... (Score:5, Interesting)
What it is is doing 'compontent-sensitive' image blending. Instead of using single alpha mask or channel for all colour components, it uses a full mask image, that is then used for blending images component by component. When mask image is a gray-scale image, this effectively degenerates to 'normal' alpha blending. However, when using non-gray colours, blending is not linear (as with alpha blending) for the components. In RGB, for example, you could take red value from source, green from destination, and blend blue 50-50 from both, and get... um... probably interesting results?
What I would like to know is if this is useful? What kind of effects can be achieved by using non-grayscale mask images? Potentially it might produce interesting effects... But are those just curiosities?
Re:As I understand it... (Score:1)
Re:As I understand it... (Score:1)
My understanding too was that the mask image (i.e. equivalent of the alpha) could be a multi-channel ARGB signal wherein each channel of the "source" and "destination" could be individually blended by their respective channels. This is an extension over standard alpha blending.
As for the possible existence of "Prior Art", at least with respect to the first claim in that patent, does anyone have a date for the SGI's
"Graphics Library Programming Guide Version 2.0"? I have a copy here but it doesn't have any dates. Note that this is the GL before it was "opened". I think this document dates from the early 1990s but an exact date would be useful.
The reason I ask is that it contained a lot of the facilities that are in OpenGL, and if you look at the section 15.2 "Blending" you will see that it is possible to do a channel by channel blend by selecting calling
blendfunction(BF_SC, BF_MSC)
along with a texturing operation. I believe this may encapsulate all the functionality described in the 5379129 patent. Since that patent was filed in 1992, there is a good chance that the SGI documentation may consititute full prior art.
Simon
Re:As I understand it... (Score:1)
Simon
Re:As I understand it... (Score:1)
Re:As I understand it... (Score:1)
Hmmh. I'm almost tempted to start doing some gfx testing again... been a while.
The actual forum post (Score:5, Funny)
forum post [linuxtoday.com]. My favorite part of the Roelofs' post is this classic line:
" So I nominate this for the 2001 tempest-in-a-teapot award... But since the
How many posts did that article get the other day?
<SIGH> another one for the courts... (Score:3, Redundant)
That's why the call for prior art goes on. Deny that Apple has a case, but build a strong defense against their case. It's the cover-your-bases approach, and, sadly, the only wise one available in the current intellectual property age.
That's an utterly ridiculous attitude. (Score:5, Insightful)
The patent itself specifically contrasts what it covers with the use of an alpha channel, such as is used by PNG. It is obviously not a threat to anyone who bothers to read the patent.
Aside from that, PNG was designed to avoid patent issues by people who knew what they were doing, in an drawn-out open process where anyone could have pointed out weaknesses. It's based on well-established techniques with a long history of prior art. Your first assumption should be that any patent either doesn't affect PNG, or is so blatantly invalid that nobody would ever dare take it to court, not that there's trouble ahead because a one-line description of a patent sounds vaguely like something PNG does.
You can't live your life shrieking in terror every time someone whispers "patent."
PNG groups opinion isn't particularly relevent (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple Unconcerned too? (Score:5, Informative)
Article on Linux Today (Score:2, Interesting)
Web browsers may be at risk (Score:2, Insightful)
Probably not a problem for Microsoft with IE - they would probably just have a little patent fight with Apple - but for free browsers this could be a problem.
There's a few [google.com] interesting [google.com] threads [google.com] on [google.com]
usenet [google.com] about it as well.
Re:Web browsers may be at risk (Score:2, Insightful)
So far Mozilla is the only browser I've seen that does proper alpha compositing of PNGs.
Re:Web browsers may be at risk (Score:2)
Re:Web browsers may be at risk (Score:2)
However, I think the original writer's worries about browsers are probably unfounded; if the patent only covers composites based on separate masks, it doesn't sound at all like what browsers really do. If they use masks (instead of just drawing layered images), those masks are dynamically generated, not read from files (or external sources). Additionally, when rendering images that have real alpha channel, mask aren't all that useful in the first place. They are just for poor man's transparency. :-)
Would be nice to have de-lawyerized patent text available to be sure, of course.
it's relevant all right (Score:1, Flamebait)
Apple itself identified the patent as relevant to SVG and at some point asked for non-discriminatory royalty payments. They apparently have backed off from those requirements by now, but Apple still hasn't dedicated the patent to the public domain, leaving some legal uncertainty hanging over open source projects.
If the Apple patent were valid, I think it could be a problem and might have to be overturned. In that sense, it is "relevant", and it makes a lot of sense to collect prior art.
It's also relevant in a different sense: it tells us about what Apple is up to, what their attitude is towards free and open source software, and the intellectual and research standards at the company.
Re:it's relevant all right (Score:2)
No, if the Apple patent were valid it would not be overturned. Anyone wanting to use the technology would have to pay licensing fees.
It's also relevant in a different sense: it tells us about what Apple is up to, what their attitude is towards free and open source software, and the intellectual and research standards at the company.
I don't understand your point. Are you happy with Apple because they are no longer requiring royalty payments, or are you complaining that they didn't give the patent to the public domain all together? Please explain what Apple is "up to."
Oh, PLEASE, people. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh, PLEASE, people. (Score:1)
I'm well beyond being amused by all the lawyers jumping into this story to demonstrate their wisdom and knowledge without ever fucking reading the patent being discussed. Please let's shoot this one and put it out of its misery.
more ignorance (Score:2)
The fact remains that these people tried to patent what was already a standard textbook technique at the time. Whether they deliberately mischaracterized and ignored prior art, or whether they were simply ignorant you will have to decide for yourself.
is a call to prior art a bad thing? (Score:2, Informative)
is there a problem with this? with the average IQ of a patent lawyer at about 35 these days, you can't be too careful. mark my words, the future of Open Source depends upon it.
Re:is a call to prior art a bad thing? (Score:2)
Why, you ask? (Score:5, Insightful)
All in all, simply self induced FUD.
Re:Why, you ask? (Score:2)
Noninfringement Opinion? (Score:5, Informative)
Part of a legal feasibility study has to be a patent infringement analysis. Whether you agree kthat software should be patentable or not, the fact it that in the US it IS patentable. If someone else made it first and was granted the exclusive right to make that product, then you will infringe on their rights if you make the product.
There is simply no excuse for not doing this analysis. Yes, there is some up-front cost to a patent attorney. However, with a large enough development group, this cost can easily be absorbed by the group at a nominal level per member. The potential consequence is that every developer can find themselves defending a patent infringement suit. The last estimate of which I am aware placed the cost of litigating an "average" infringement suit at just around $500,000.00. If the case is deemed "exceptional," the infringers could potentially have to pay the patentee's legal costs as well as their own, on top of paying damages for the patentee's lost profits.
Bottom line: all this can be avoided by getting a noninfringement opinion by a reputable and competent patent attorney. This is a basic software engineering step and should be performed at the very beginning of the development process. The attorney will even be able to suggest ways you can still go forward with the project, but do so in a way that does not infringe on someone else's rights.
Re:Noninfringement Opinion? (Score:1)
At this point though, the PNG developers would be absolutely foolish not to get an opinion from a competent patent attorney. If they are found to be infringing Apple's patent after they knew about it, and declined to get an attorney's opinion, they are going to be found to be willful infringers which might mean treble damages and attorney's fees if they lose.
Re:Noninfringement Opinion? (Score:2)
Patents on software protect functionality and to a certain extent, the structure that provides that functionality. If your project is not sufficiently developed so that an infringement analysis is possible or useful, the attorney giving the opinion will tell you that he does not have enough information to give the opinion. For those skeptics who are thinking "yeah, right" on this point, remember this: it is the attorney's reputation and malpractice policy on the line if he doesn't do his job right in giving the opinion.
Re:Noninfringement Opinion? (Score:1)
the beginning statges of development, you should have a decent draft of the program's requirements and some conception of its structure. It is at this point that a noninfringement opinion should be sought."
Maybe. But the original post said before ANY other development activity, so your statement is already more conservative than the original one. I never said that noninfringing opinions were of dubious value. I said pre development opinions were often (not always, not even usually) of dubious value.
PNG/MNG is a good example of a situation where an early opinion might have been a good idea, because the major reason for the projects existence was to work around a troublesome patent.
Re:Noninfringement Opinion? (Score:1)
I know this is Open Source, but I generally thought that most Open Source software was better engineered than much of the commercial stuff out there.
What gave you that idea? Open source efforts may or may not be better engineered than non-open source stuff, but they are not guaranteed to be better. It all has to do with the number of people working on the project, the quality of the project, the project administration, etc.
Look at it this way, if you have a well-funded, well-organized, large commercial effort then it will most likely beat the pants off of a free, badly organized open-source effort with only a couple of developers. The reverse is true also.
Is open source better than commercial? Well, the result is free and it has the potential to produce a good product, but many times projects take a long time to develop, end up rough around the edges, are largely unsupported, and require a good knowledge of the product to operate it. If this was how a piece of commercial software turned out then it would tend to wither and die off (with some [microsoft.com] exceptions), because no one would pay for it.
There are some great open source efforts and some great commercial products, but you have to choose them on a case-by-case basis. I certainly prefer open source to commercial, all other factors being equal.
Re:Noninfringement Opinion? (Score:2)
Re:Noninfringement Opinion? (Score:1)
While a legal feasability study is certainly a Good Thing that any major Open Source project should do, remember that many projects start out as a few people hacking away. There is no large group that can put up the cash for these sorts of legal costs. It just doesn't exist. A lot of these projects start out as hobbies. I don't know about you, but I most certainly don't want to pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to figure out what I can do in my spare time.
In some cases, it is obviously rather daft to go anywhere with a project without paying a lawyer lots of money first (e.g., Ogg Vorbis), and probably later too (Good luck to the Vorbis team!).
In the case of PNG, it would have been a good idea, because we were doing this to get away from exactly this sort of thing in the first place!
Re:Noninfringement Opinion? (Score:2)
Re:Noninfringement Opinion? (Score:2)
As for those "asshole companies" I think YOU forget that many of them began on $0.03 in someone's basement. The difference? The Company had the foresight to recognize that intellectual property is valuable.
Remember, you only need a license to drive a car if you want to drive on a public way. If you want to stay in your backyard, far away from your neighbors, then no one cares.
Re:Noninfringement Opinion? (Score:2)
You wouldn't want just anyone coming into your house and eating your food. Why? Because it is your EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY and you have the EXCLUSIVE right to control its use. The exact same principle is at work here.
What you are advocating is not freedom. It is Communism. A free society respects private property.
Re:Noninfringement Opinion? (Score:2)
As for individuals, you are seriously misguided. The patent system has ALWAYS affected individuals directly. It is IMPOSSIBLE in the US for a corporation to obtain a patent. They can own patents, but cannot obtain them. That right is reserved to inventors.
You are also seriously misguided about implementation. You have much too narrow a view on what patents cover. A patent must teach one of ordinary skill in the art how to make and use the invention so it can go into the public domain after the term of the patent has expired.
Individuals are the ones who are skilled in the art. You can make an invention out of wood. Many individuals have woodworking tools. Just because it is harder (or easier) to implement some inventions than others is not a reason to claim patents in those areas are bad.
If you aren't willing to play by the rules either work to change the rules or find another hobby or just keep your code to yourself.
Your rights end where another's rights begin.
Re:Noninfringement Opinion? (Score:2)
I am surprised that someone with a computer science background has this much trouble with an abstract concept - namely property. The owner of the property is free to do with it what they want. That means they can charge whathever they like for licenses, or even choose not to license it at all.
The fact is the patent system exists to promote progress. It does so by ensuring inventors can profit from their inventions. The time is limited so that society as a whole can use the invention when the patent duration has expired. If you are writing software that is covered by a patent, no matter how "new" it seems to you, the existence of a patent is iron-clad proof that at least one other person has done it before. Therefore, the patent holder has the right to profit from it. You do not because you are not the first to do it. No matter how good your code is, it is not an "advancement" because it is not the first. You are merely recreating what has been done. if that were allowable, patents on wheels would be issued on a regular basis.
Re:Noninfringement Opinion? (Score:2)
And you CAN improve on another's invention -- you can even get a patent for the improvement. You just may not be able to PRACTICE the improvement without infringing a patent on the original product.
EVERY DAY small inventors file for patents on new software. I know -- I write the applications. If you don't want to hire an attorney, the Patent Examiners will even WRITE YOUR CLAIMS FOR YOU -- they are required to under the law if you have a patentable invention.
Gee, a $345.00 filing fee plus a $605.00 fee later IF a patent issues for the opportunity to make some actual money with your code or even just give it away if you are altruistic. Sounds like a bargain to me. You are simply paying for PROPERTY -- that is the point you keep missing.
Learn more about the system and maybe your criticisms will become more focused and valid. I am ending my participation in this thread here.
keep cool (Score:2, Interesting)
Nothing's wrong with the patent
At least not for several years until the PNG-format is used all over the internet and apple can make a fortune by taking it out of the drawer.
It's a false patent, if there was prior existance. (Score:2, Insightful)
We all know Apple wasn't the first, and therefor they shouldn't have the patent. I'm not worried about it either, but I would like another stupid patent overturned.
Re:It's a false patent, if there was prior existan (Score:1)
Re:It's a false patent, if there was prior existan (Score:1)
I am not claiming I know either way and certainly would like to see these software patents squashed but we need some proof that there was prior art!
Most relevant I say (Score:2)
Socialistic capitalism
Re:Most relevant I say (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course inventors should be paid - but what's an invention? The theme right now seems to be "quick, patent it before everyone else thinks of it" whereas it was supposed to be "patent it so others don't steal it from you."
There is absolutely no reason one the first company to patent an obvious thing should have exclusivity to it. (and of course the whole thing is weighted very heavily against open source development, but that's a different issue)
An Anti-Software-Patent Database (Score:3, Interesting)
Prior Art (Score:1)
The big deal with this patent is not its implications for PNG, MNG, or SVG - it's the abundance of *published* prior art, from way earlier than the patent was applied for. It's a blatantly obvious case of the USPTO not doing its homework.
People just don't get patents (Score:2, Insightful)
There are lots of patents that discuss alpha blending. They don't affect PNG.
The important thing to remember about patents is "don't go looking for trouble". Don't worry about new patents that come out -- wait until the patent owner comes looking for you. If you look far enough in the patent database, you will certianly find patents that can be interpreted to cover your idea. Unless you bring it to their attention, or are a direct competitor, most patent owners won't care about you. Most companies view patents as a defensive play -- they don't really care about them, they just grab the patents so that if a competitor sues them for patent infringement, they can sue back. E.g. Via countersuing Intel on patents.
Typical obvious patent (Score:2, Interesting)
The real clincher is that they go on to list all of these wonderous things you can do with full color mask. But most of their examples only require a good old fasioned greyscale map! Somebody at Apple pulled a fast one at the patent office. The entire 'Fig 1.' shows an example which doesn't even use Apple's 'invention'! It just uses good old fashioned greyscale alpha masks which Apple lists as prior art! Then two of the claims list anti-aliased text! Does anybody do this with color alpha masks? No font renderer spits out multi-color images! They spit out greyscale which is used to merge the text color/pattern with the background! Once again, they claim their invention is needed to do something which everyone does with the prior art method!
On the plus side, it's such a silly invention it's trivial to work around. Here's an idea: use three different alpha masks! One per channel! I wonder if Apple managed to get a patent on that. Hey, here's another nifty idea! Generate the three alpha masks from the three channels of a color image! I bet Apple never thought of that! Only a genius like me could think of that. What an invention! I'll make millions!
Man, this patent is the worst. Check out Claim 3: A method as in claim 1 further comprising displaying the result image. Whoh Nellie! Your going to display the image! Man, that's adds a whole new level of complexity. Usually, I composite images and then just free the memory. But actually displaying an image you've generated! Man, what incredible insight!
Nothing to fear but fear itself (Score:3, Insightful)
"Fear Itself
Misinformation on this matter has caused many open-source advocates to incorrectly accuse Apple of holding back Open Web technologies.
Let's hope that cooler heads prevail and that fear-debunking articles such as this one are more widely read."
It is amazing how worked up everyone got in November when they learned that a company that supports web standards and has a public policy of royalty-free licensing for them (as of October) had responded in June to a call to disclose all patents to the PNG group that they should be aware of for infringement issues in the future.
No one answered melquiades's question (Score:3, Insightful)
If Apple's patent is valid, nothing put out by the PNG group infringes. However, when an application, say, Mozilla, displays a PNG in front of some other graphic and uses the PNG's alpha mask to do partial transparency, that would infringe. Similarly, when a Gnome or KDE desktop displays a PNG icon and uses the partial transparency to have a smooth and not a jagged edge, that would infringe. But just storing the alpha mask in the file doesn't collide with anything in the patent.
In practice, there's so much prior art that the patent will be dead meat once it hits a court. Traditionally, the patent holder deals with this by licensing for a fee small enough that it's cheaper to pay than fight, and in this case, perhaps giving an out to the free software folks, while possibly trying to get a bit of cash from others. But in this case, I suspect that even that strategy is not going to work.
Re:No one answered melquiades's question (Score:3, Informative)
So, like PNG gurus said, this doesn't relate to PNG; PNG 'only' supports alpha channel (although it's questionable whether full alpha-'image' would be an improvement... but that's what Apple patented).
Re:No one answered melquiades's question (Score:2)
Re:No one answered melquiades's question (Score:1)
- Benad
Re:No one answered melquiades's question (Score:2)
GIMP influenced? (Score:2)
Re:DO NOT TRUST APPLE- you cant predict the future (Score:1)
I'm fairly sure that passively waiting for someone to infringe is A-OK, however. Do you have some links or such that you could post to support your position? I'd be interested to see if my understanding is correct or not.