Slashdot Mirror

It's a pain that popular compression algorithms are covered by patents

Quite.

http://www.ross.net/compression/

but I think it's quite fair to say that advances there are patentworthy, just like advances in analog techniques of bandwidth reduction for broadcast video.

And as any student of the patent system will tell you, the patent system never has been and (for various reasons) cannot be made to issue patents only for "patentworthy" inventions. Unless there is good reason and evidence to believe that making patents available in some field/industry "promotes progress...", the economically (and ethically) rational thing to do is to not make them available. See e.g. Machlup's review http://www.mises.org/etexts/patentsystem.pdf and http://researchoninnovation.org/

No, they didn't.

Here's some words from an
expert in the field of compression and patents:

http://www.ross.net/compression/

" Waterworth patented a LZ77 variant (US Patent 4701745). This algorithm
is generally referred to as as LZRW1, because Ross Williams reinvented
it later and posted it on comp.compression on April 22, 1991. The same
algorithm has later been patented by Gibson & Graybill (US Patent
5049881). The patent office failed to recognize that the same algorithm
was patented twice, even though the wording used in the two patents is
very similar.

The Waterworth patent is now owned by Stac, which won a lawsuit against
Microsoft, concerning the compression feature of MS-DOS 6.0. Damages
awarded were $120 million. (Microsoft and Stac later settled out of
court.) "

From his resume: "Consulting to Microsoft: In 1993 Stac initiated a
software patent lawsuit against Microsoft over the doublespace data
compression feature of MS-DOS 6. As part of its defence, Microsoft
retained me as an expert in text data compression. Tasks involved
searching for prior art and evaluating patents. "

Most importantly, however:

http://www.ross.net/compression/introduction.html

"Unfortunately, during this happy rollout, some patents popped out of
the US patent system that cast a shadow over the LZRW series algorithms,
and they became effectively unuseable in any practical application. If
you want to use them in any product (whether free or commercial), you
will have to do some in-depth patent homework and algorithm
development/modification so as to avoid infringement. If you think
that's easy, then you should be aware that Microsoft tried to use an
LZ77/LZRW1/etc variant, specifically designed not to infringe existing
patents, in its MS-DOS V6 operating system, and ended up having to pay
Stac about $80m in the resulting patent lawsuit. For this reason, I
would like to take this opportunity to state that the code provided in
this web (and FTP site) is provided with the intention that it be used
for educational and recreational use only. "

No, they didn't.

Here's some words from an
expert in the field of compression and patents:

http://www.ross.net/compression/

" Waterworth patented a LZ77 variant (US Patent 4701745). This algorithm
is generally referred to as as LZRW1, because Ross Williams reinvented
it later and posted it on comp.compression on April 22, 1991. The same
algorithm has later been patented by Gibson & Graybill (US Patent
5049881). The patent office failed to recognize that the same algorithm
was patented twice, even though the wording used in the two patents is
very similar.

The Waterworth patent is now owned by Stac, which won a lawsuit against
Microsoft, concerning the compression feature of MS-DOS 6.0. Damages
awarded were $120 million. (Microsoft and Stac later settled out of
court.) "

From his resume: "Consulting to Microsoft: In 1993 Stac initiated a
software patent lawsuit against Microsoft over the doublespace data
compression feature of MS-DOS 6. As part of its defence, Microsoft
retained me as an expert in text data compression. Tasks involved
searching for prior art and evaluating patents. "

Most importantly, however:

http://www.ross.net/compression/introduction.html

"Unfortunately, during this happy rollout, some patents popped out of
the US patent system that cast a shadow over the LZRW series algorithms,
and they became effectively unuseable in any practical application. If
you want to use them in any product (whether free or commercial), you
will have to do some in-depth patent homework and algorithm
development/modification so as to avoid infringement. If you think
that's easy, then you should be aware that Microsoft tried to use an
LZ77/LZRW1/etc variant, specifically designed not to infringe existing
patents, in its MS-DOS V6 operating system, and ended up having to pay
Stac about $80m in the resulting patent lawsuit. For this reason, I
would like to take this opportunity to state that the code provided in
this web (and FTP site) is provided with the intention that it be used
for educational and recreational use only. "

Sure... here's my research:

http://www.ross.net/compression/introduction.html
"Unfortunately, during this happy rollout, some patents popped out of
the US patent system that cast a shadow over the LZRW series algorithms,
and they became effectively unuseable in any practical application. If
you want to use them in any product (whether free or commercial), you
will have to do some in-depth patent homework and algorithm
development/modification so as to avoid infringement. If you think
that's easy, then you should be aware that Microsoft tried to use an
LZ77/LZRW1/etc variant, specifically designed not to infringe existing
patents, in its MS-DOS V6 operating system, and ended up having to pay
Stac about $80m in the resulting patent lawsuit. For this reason, I
would like to take this opportunity to state that the code provided in
this web (and FTP site) is provided with the intention that it be used
for educational and recreational use only. "

http://www.ross.net/compression/patents_notes_from_ccfaq.html
"LZ77 Patents

  Waterworth patented a LZ77 variant (US Patent 4701745). This algorithm
is generally referred to as as LZRW1, because Ross Williams reinvented
it later and posted it on comp.compression on April 22, 1991. The same
algorithm has later been patented by Gibson & Graybill (US Patent
5049881). The patent office failed to recognize that the same algorithm
was patented twice, even though the wording used in the two patents is
very similar.

The Waterworth patent is now owned by Stac, which won a lawsuit against
Microsoft, concerning the compression feature of MS-DOS 6.0. Damages
awarded were $120 million. (Microsoft and Stac later settled out of
court.) "

Sure... here's my research:

http://www.ross.net/compression/introduction.html
"Unfortunately, during this happy rollout, some patents popped out of
the US patent system that cast a shadow over the LZRW series algorithms,
and they became effectively unuseable in any practical application. If
you want to use them in any product (whether free or commercial), you
will have to do some in-depth patent homework and algorithm
development/modification so as to avoid infringement. If you think
that's easy, then you should be aware that Microsoft tried to use an
LZ77/LZRW1/etc variant, specifically designed not to infringe existing
patents, in its MS-DOS V6 operating system, and ended up having to pay
Stac about $80m in the resulting patent lawsuit. For this reason, I
would like to take this opportunity to state that the code provided in
this web (and FTP site) is provided with the intention that it be used
for educational and recreational use only. "

http://www.ross.net/compression/patents_notes_from_ccfaq.html
"LZ77 Patents

  Waterworth patented a LZ77 variant (US Patent 4701745). This algorithm
is generally referred to as as LZRW1, because Ross Williams reinvented
it later and posted it on comp.compression on April 22, 1991. The same
algorithm has later been patented by Gibson & Graybill (US Patent
5049881). The patent office failed to recognize that the same algorithm
was patented twice, even though the wording used in the two patents is
very similar.

The Waterworth patent is now owned by Stac, which won a lawsuit against
Microsoft, concerning the compression feature of MS-DOS 6.0. Damages
awarded were $120 million. (Microsoft and Stac later settled out of
court.) "

What about the people who created something, found that someone had already created the same thing a decade ago, and had to cease and desist or (worse) pay damages? It happened to George Harrison (Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music), it happened to Michael Bolton (Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton), and it happened to Ross Williams (whose LZRW family algorithms were later found to have patent problems).

After 20 years, we get that in the public domain.

Assuming that Congress doesn't enact the Cher Patent Term Extension Act. And given the pace of independent reinvention in computer science, is a 20-year term anywhere near optimal "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"?

Go research something already. If someone else patented it, well, research something else.

So what should I do if I end up like Ross Williams and end up independently reinventing several patented processes in a row? Williams invented and described LZRW series of data compression algorithms, but it turned out that there existed a patent on each method that he independently reinvented. I see this as evidence that there are too many mines in this field. In computer graphics, see the Carmack's Reverse scandal.

Yes, software patents do carry the stigma of having been abused and mis-used by patent-trolls. There were a lot of bullshit and obvious patents snuck through just because the patent office got disoriented by anything that mentioned "in software" or "on a computer" ... But there are lots of things which aren't trivial at all.

So what test do you propose for examiners to discern the difference between valuable patents and cattle manure patents?

After 20 years, we get that in the public domain.

Assuming that Congress doesn't enact the Cher Patent Term Extension Act. And given the pace of independent reinvention in computer science, is a 20-year term anywhere near optimal "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"?

Go research something already. If someone else patented it, well, research something else.

So what should I do if I end up like Ross Williams and end up independently reinventing several patented processes in a row? Williams invented and described LZRW series of data compression algorithms, but it turned out that there existed a patent on each method that he independently reinvented. I see this as evidence that there are too many mines in this field. In computer graphics, see the Carmack's Reverse scandal.

Yes, software patents do carry the stigma of having been abused and mis-used by patent-trolls. There were a lot of bullshit and obvious patents snuck through just because the patent office got disoriented by anything that mentioned "in software" or "on a computer" ... But there are lots of things which aren't trivial at all.

So what test do you propose for examiners to discern the difference between valuable patents and cattle manure patents?

Unfortunately, during this happy rollout, some patents popped out of the US patent system that cast a shadow over the LZRW series algorithms, and they became effectively unuseable in any practical application. If you want to use them in any product (whether free or commercial), you will have to do some in-depth patent homework and algorithm development/modification so as to avoid infringement. If you think that's easy, then you should be aware that Microsoft tried to use an LZ77/LZRW1/etc variant, specifically designed not to infringe existing patents, in its MS-DOS V6 operating system, and ended up having to pay Stac about $80m in the resulting patent lawsuit. For this reason, I would like to take this opportunity to state that the code provided in this web (and FTP site) is provided with the intention that it be used for educational and recreational use only.

LZ77 Patents

Waterworth patented a LZ77 variant (US Patent 4701745). This algorithm is generally referred to as as LZRW1, because Ross Williams reinvented it later and posted it on comp.compression on April 22, 1991. The same algorithm has later been patented by Gibson & Graybill (US Patent 5049881). The patent office failed to recognize that the same algorithm was patented twice, even though the wording used in the two patents is very similar.

The Waterworth patent is now owned by Stac, which won a lawsuit against Microsoft, concerning the compression feature of MS-DOS 6.0. Damages awarded were $120 million. (Microsoft and Stac later settled out of court.)

Unfortunately, during this happy rollout, some patents popped out of the US patent system that cast a shadow over the LZRW series algorithms, and they became effectively unuseable in any practical application. If you want to use them in any product (whether free or commercial), you will have to do some in-depth patent homework and algorithm development/modification so as to avoid infringement. If you think that's easy, then you should be aware that Microsoft tried to use an LZ77/LZRW1/etc variant, specifically designed not to infringe existing patents, in its MS-DOS V6 operating system, and ended up having to pay Stac about $80m in the resulting patent lawsuit. For this reason, I would like to take this opportunity to state that the code provided in this web (and FTP site) is provided with the intention that it be used for educational and recreational use only.

LZ77 Patents

Waterworth patented a LZ77 variant (US Patent 4701745). This algorithm is generally referred to as as LZRW1, because Ross Williams reinvented it later and posted it on comp.compression on April 22, 1991. The same algorithm has later been patented by Gibson & Graybill (US Patent 5049881). The patent office failed to recognize that the same algorithm was patented twice, even though the wording used in the two patents is very similar.

The Waterworth patent is now owned by Stac, which won a lawsuit against Microsoft, concerning the compression feature of MS-DOS 6.0. Damages awarded were $120 million. (Microsoft and Stac later settled out of court.)

The last time I looked into fractal technology (1997), it was impressive and it does work very well, but the problem with it appeared to be that the technology was plagued with patent issues. http://www.ross.net/compression/patent_us5384867.h tml http://www.ross.net/compression/patent_us5065447.h tml http://www.ross.net/compression/patent_us5430812.h tml

The last time I looked into fractal technology (1997), it was impressive and it does work very well, but the problem with it appeared to be that the technology was plagued with patent issues. http://www.ross.net/compression/patent_us5384867.h tml http://www.ross.net/compression/patent_us5065447.h tml http://www.ross.net/compression/patent_us5430812.h tml

The last time I looked into fractal technology (1997), it was impressive and it does work very well, but the problem with it appeared to be that the technology was plagued with patent issues. http://www.ross.net/compression/patent_us5384867.h tml http://www.ross.net/compression/patent_us5065447.h tml http://www.ross.net/compression/patent_us5430812.h tml

Compression provides numerous examples: http://www.ross.net/compression/patents_notes_from _ccfaq.html

as for wavelet compression being a novel codec, what about apple's pixlet technology?

Stac. Timeline. Syn'X.

Microsoft have "stolen" code more than once. But because it's closed source, it is difficult for the victims to discover and prove the infringement


Ah, this old chestnut.

Stac was a PATENT INFRINGEMENT case. No code was touched.

here's some words from an
expert in the field of compression and patents:

http://www.ross.net/compression/

" Waterworth patented a LZ77 variant (US Patent 4701745). This algorithm
is generally referred to as as LZRW1, because Ross Williams reinvented
it later and posted it on comp.compression on April 22, 1991. The same
algorithm has later been patented by Gibson & Graybill (US Patent
5049881). The patent office failed to recognize that the same algorithm
was patented twice, even though the wording used in the two patents is
very similar.

The Waterworth patent is now owned by Stac, which won a lawsuit against
Microsoft, concerning the compression feature of MS-DOS 6.0. Damages
awarded were $120 million. (Microsoft and Stac later settled out of
court.) "

From his resume: "Consulting to Microsoft: In 1993 Stac initiated a
software patent lawsuit against Microsoft over the doublespace data
compression feature of MS-DOS 6. As part of its defence, Microsoft
retained me as an expert in text data compression. Tasks involved
searching for prior art and evaluating patents. "

Most importantly, however:

http://www.ross.net/compression/introduction.html

"Unfortunately, during this happy rollout, some patents popped out of
the US patent system that cast a shadow over the LZRW series algorithms,
and they became effectively unuseable in any practical application. If
you want to use them in any product (whether free or commercial), you
will have to do some in-depth patent homework and algorithm
development/modification so as to avoid infringement. If you think
that's easy, then you should be aware that Microsoft tried to use an
LZ77/LZRW1/etc variant, specifically designed not to infringe existing
patents, in its MS-DOS V6 operating system, and ended up having to pay
Stac about $80m in the resulting patent lawsuit. For this reason, I
would like to take this opportunity to state that the code provided in
this web (and FTP site) is provided with the intention that it be used
for educational and recreational use only. "

Stac. Timeline. Syn'X.

Microsoft have "stolen" code more than once. But because it's closed source, it is difficult for the victims to discover and prove the infringement


Ah, this old chestnut.

Stac was a PATENT INFRINGEMENT case. No code was touched.

here's some words from an
expert in the field of compression and patents:

http://www.ross.net/compression/

" Waterworth patented a LZ77 variant (US Patent 4701745). This algorithm
is generally referred to as as LZRW1, because Ross Williams reinvented
it later and posted it on comp.compression on April 22, 1991. The same
algorithm has later been patented by Gibson & Graybill (US Patent
5049881). The patent office failed to recognize that the same algorithm
was patented twice, even though the wording used in the two patents is
very similar.

The Waterworth patent is now owned by Stac, which won a lawsuit against
Microsoft, concerning the compression feature of MS-DOS 6.0. Damages
awarded were $120 million. (Microsoft and Stac later settled out of
court.) "

From his resume: "Consulting to Microsoft: In 1993 Stac initiated a
software patent lawsuit against Microsoft over the doublespace data
compression feature of MS-DOS 6. As part of its defence, Microsoft
retained me as an expert in text data compression. Tasks involved
searching for prior art and evaluating patents. "

Most importantly, however:

http://www.ross.net/compression/introduction.html

"Unfortunately, during this happy rollout, some patents popped out of
the US patent system that cast a shadow over the LZRW series algorithms,
and they became effectively unuseable in any practical application. If
you want to use them in any product (whether free or commercial), you
will have to do some in-depth patent homework and algorithm
development/modification so as to avoid infringement. If you think
that's easy, then you should be aware that Microsoft tried to use an
LZ77/LZRW1/etc variant, specifically designed not to infringe existing
patents, in its MS-DOS V6 operating system, and ended up having to pay
Stac about $80m in the resulting patent lawsuit. For this reason, I
would like to take this opportunity to state that the code provided in
this web (and FTP site) is provided with the intention that it be used
for educational and recreational use only. "

I'm curious if anyone knows whether the IBM patent has also expired? Or if not, when it is set to expire - that's the one thing I haven't been able to find out. I'm not familiar with patent law, so I don't know whether the patent period is fixed or variable.

Even if it is now expired, it would probably be of benefit for somewhat more familiar with the two patents to discuss the differences between them. I'm sure other Slashdotters would be interested to find out.

Heh, dig a little deeper, we'll prolly see they used PKZip to compress JPEGs and GIFs, used Cookies as identifiers, and initiated the transfer by Hyperlinks... from a Graphical and textual information on a video screen for purposes of making a sale.

All unlicensed, of course.

:))

Oops, didn't mean to hit that button. Here are better links.

The source is available , but it doesn't appear to work with the standard linux toolkit (gcc, make, configure, perl, etc.). It requires something called FunnelWeb (which appears to be some sort of literate programming aid) to build.

Since Funnelweb isn't already installed on my box and I'm too lazy to be bothered with it I guess that I'll miss out on FreeVeracity, at least until someone releases a version in straight C (something that appears to be permissible under the license).

daniel

The source is available, but it doesn't appear to work with the standard linux toolkit (gcc, make, configure, perl, etc.). It requires something called FunnelWeb (which appears to be some sort of literate programming aid) to build.

Since Funnelweb isn't already installed on my box and I'm too lazy to be bothered with it I guess that I'll miss out on FreeVeracity, at least until someone releases a version in straight C (something that appears to be permissible under the license).

daniel