Slashdot Mirror
Apple Patent Blocking PNG Development
Daniel writes: "Apple has a patent (U.S. Patent No. 5,379,129) on compositing a source and destination image using a mask image. This patent appears to read on alpha channel transparency, which the PNG and MNG file formats use. APPLE has declared in their patent statement to the Scalable Vector Graphics Working Group that their patent is only available for RAND Licensing. Since this patent appears to read on the PNG file format, Apple is hampering work on the PNG and MNG file formats.
Perhaps Apple would like to clarify this situation by explicitly stating that this patent does not cover the PNG and MNG file formats or by RF Licensing their patent to the PNG and MNG development groups.
Alternatively, the PNG and MNG developers are asking people to submit prior art in order to invalidate Apple's patent. SGI in particular appears to have prior art with their 'blendfunction.' Make sure the prior art you submit is older than May 08, 1992, the filing date of Apple's patent."
Apple introduced a function called "CopyDeepMask" into their API in ... I'm not sure ... certainly by System 7, maybe by 6. I'm pretty sure I was looking at that call in 1991, and maybe even 1990. Is 1992 the filing date, or the date they claim invention? Does it matter it pattent law?
For some non-Apple prior art, when was the first version of Photoshop released? Alpha compositing is its bread and butter, and I'm pretty sure even the earliest versions let you turn an image into a selection.
Now that I've finally weaned myself completely away from the GIF file format, PNG is having patent problems. Let's add another line to "Software Patents are bad, M'kay?"
From what I understand, this patent tries to over-broadly apply to all in-file 'Alpha-channel' blending techniques.
My suggestion is to create an open-patent free protocol that replaces one file transparency with two-file transparency. IE, one file is the base image, and the second file acts as a transparency mask. Since it uses two files, this technique should be free and clear of the Apple patent, right?
An HTML tage for something like this would read something like
< img src="file.jpg" mask="mask.jpg" >
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
You know how, when you type the last character that'll fit on the last line in a text window, the top line disappears, all the other lines move up one, and the cursor appears in the first position of a new blank line?
IBM has a patent on that.
- They are a company; their business is making money, not being cool (except to the extend that being cool helps business).
- They are publicly traded, so they have a legal obligation to their stockholders to do their best to make money, even at the expense of being cool.
- Making money means pursuing every strategy available to them to its fullest extent, and taking advantage of whatever the law, the world, and circumstance gives them.
- Sometimes this means doing cool things, like open-sourcing the core of their new OS.
- Sometimes the means doing crappy things, like abusing an overinflated body of intellectual property law.
Of course, if they really do put the brakes on PNG (and let's wait to hear all sides of the story), and if that hurts their business (e.g. it hurts their good standing with their customers and developers), they won't do it. So maybe sending them a polite but firm e-mail asking for an explanation isn't a bad idea.Has Apple actually made any threats on this, or did someone just find this statement and see it as a possible precursor to a threat?
PNG has been around for a while now, and Apple has never(AFAIK) said anything about it in the past. I really don't see how this changes anything.
Now we're gonna get all these slashbots telling us how Apple is evil and everyone should boycott OS X/Darwin because of this, when they really haven't done anything. Chicken Little ought not be the standard tone of every Slashdot story.
Try Porter and Duff's paper published in 1984 introducing image composition that started it all!!!!
There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Every program that combines images and works with true color uses this. It is impossible not to, the algorithim is totally obvious. True color images (ie where the numbers represent levels of red, green, blue, rather than be indexes into a color pallette) were in common use in advanced visualization and simulations in 1980, such as Evans & Sutherland flight simulators. I also saw photo touch-up software that could duplicate a portion of the image and put it somewhere else in 1979, and I believe it must have used this, as otherwise the edges of the cut piece would be visible.
PORT84, Porter, T., and T.Duff, "Compositing Digital Images," SIGGRAPH 84, 253-259.
This is the paper most-often cited, however I think it's main addition is the enumeration of compositing operators and the introduction of "premultiplied" images. Before that I believe non-premultiplied was used as that was the more obvious solution. Also PNG does not use premulitplication.
Even if Apple is going to be a pita about this, it does not affect PNG, as the file format itself does not do any compositing, it just stores a 4th "color" called the alpha. So I would not worry about it there. However Photoshop and Gimp and the in-house program I write for Digital Domain uses this, and about six thousand other pieces of commercial and free software.
Who honestly believes Apple would try to milk this almost certainly invalid patent? What do they gain by going after PNG? I think everyone will agree that web standards help Apple, and they are not going to do something against their best interest.
And what is up with /. posting stories about months-old facts with no new developments anyways? I think it is good for /. to bring this issue up and get Apple to clarify their position, but listen to the report: "APPLE has declared in their patent statement to the Scalable Vector Graphics Working Group that their patent is only available for RAND Licensing." They make it sound like it just happened! And while I'm complaining, why is "Apple" in all caps ;)
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
I think this leaves only two possible conclusions: either Apple's legal staff and the inventors, Konstantin Othmer and Bruce Leak, are completely incompetent, or the inventors deliberately tried to patent a technique they knew to be in wide use and Apple's legal staff is deliberately trying to enforce an invalid patent. Apple didn't even have the smarts to offer this patent for "royalty free" licensing to SVG.
Forget about any of Apple's claims of openness: this is such a clear case of patent abuse that it can't be an accident or mistake. The open source community would do well to stonewall Apple: don't incorporate OSX-related patches into open source projects, don't port to their hardware, and don't buy their products.
CLick the "Image" button to see the lovely diagrams. There are a few items this patent does NOT cover, as explicitely mentioned in the text. This patent does not cover additional channel information, like alpha channels. It only covers a seperate, full color, mask image that is used to mask off the source image.
I have a few questions:
If the patent does not cover greyscale images, then not all sanity is lost!
-B
From the Second Edition of "Principles of Interactive Computer Graphics", by William M. Newman published by McGraw-Hill in 1979:
:= ColorRaster.ymin to ColorRaster.ymax - 1 do
:= ColorRaster.xmin to ColorRaster.xmax - 1 do
We find on page 222 the pseudocode for the WriteColor procedure:
procedure WriteColor(var ColorRaster: raster; x, y: integer);
var i, j: integer;
begin
for j
for i
if GetPixel(ColorRaster, i, j) <> transparent then
SetPixel(FrameBuffer, x+i, y+j, GetPixel(ColorRaster, i, j))
end;
And there was a First Edition published in 1973, for all I know it's in there too.
BTW, there isn't anything Bill Atkinson did for Apple in QuickDraw that isn't spelled out in this book.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
Have you read this linked page? Have you read any statements made by Apple that they are using this patent to prevent you from using the PNG format?
If you look at that page, you will see that Apple does offer a license for the patent as part of the SVG 1.0 patent which is being put together. It looks like they are just being cautious in order to keep their rights to the patent intact, but still allow it to be used for PNG and SVG.There are plenty of greedy corporations out there and Apple may in fact be one, but don't assume they are without looking at all the facts. Take a look at the sites listed in this article, write to Apple and ask questions, express your thoughts to Apple. If you are not then satisfied with what you see then you can make as much noise about it as you want. Making a big deal about this just because someone has implied wrongdoing on Apple's part is just being a follower.
Sapere aude!
The definitive reference on the history of alpha is Alvy Ray Smith's technical memo from 1995. It seems pretty clear that he co-invented the technique with Ed Catmull as a solution to a problem that Catmull was having with his sub-pixel hidden surface algorithm.
The earliest dated documentation on his alpha channel code is January 13, 1978, although it was probably written the previous December. See footnote 4, page 6 of the memo for details.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Apple Advertises '1-click' licensing. goes more toward proving amazon.com suckered them than showing evil on their part, and on Apple sues to stop leaks. I emphatically support their action, although you probably didn't get the complete story unless you read some real news on it. Apple tracked down and stopped a leak in their R&D division. He was trying to be harmless, releasing roadmaps and product details to Mac rumor sites, but his actions certainly gave Apple a huge disadvantage and lost them money. All they did was get him to agree to stop, even though they certainly could have won monetary damages. How can you oppose that?
"...a lot of us contribute to Apple. Hint. Stop posting Apple press releases on slashdot. :)" Oh yes, Apple would be davasted if /. stopped doing mostly misinformed and negative reports on their products. "Think different. Indeed!" Interesting since half your complaints had to do with people "Thinking Same." "Apple couldn't build their own OS so they use choose *BSD to gain market share." Apple can't make their own OS, eh? Actually they scrapped years of work to go with the BSD core, and they managed to put an interface on it better by orders of magnitude than anything yet available for an OSS OS, not to bash OSS OSs of course, just saying UI and setup is their big weak point in the desktop world currently. But I'm pretty sure everyone already realizes that "Apple couldn't build their own OS" was a troll.
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith
You seen to forget:
HP, Apple Drop Support for Royalties on Web Standards
Don't you think that is HELPFUL?
I personally think it's rather odd they would state they do not support RAND, then say you have to use RAND for this standard... something is wrong here.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Also think of the confussion it causes when two products look identical. It should let the opensource community do this and not allow companies to do it? What's the insentive?
As for the one-click thing, please. They debuted one-click, so what. They are using, or at least were, using a technology. Don't pick on their website just 'cause they licensed a technology from another company that has a patent on it. What's cheaper, lisencing or going to court? Pick on Amazon for creating such a stupid patent.
And as for the cube-NDA contract issue, please. Gimme a friggin' break. So what if Apple likes to hide their new products until they are ready to do it the way they want. The employee signed a contract that he won't leak information from Apple. What if a competitor such as Dell caught wind and released something just as cool, but earlier. Great, Apple would get shafted 'cause of some ass employee who can't play nice.
As for the BSD crack you made, they are using opensource software and giving back the modified version, Darwin for free. Don't be an ingrate and say "Well, a patent (mind you invalid) exists, they get people to stop mimicing their interface verbatim, use OSS and recontribute while making their OS even more stable than before, so apple reeks." statement. Maybe we should step all over Apple and hack QuickTime, which uses a kick ass codec and try our best to drive the company into the ground.
You've just spread extreemist FUD about a company protecting its rights. piss me off...
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
> It seems un-American, bordering on the Communist to suggest that Apple should simply give away their intellectual property.
Ignoring the whole "give away" and "intellectual property" parts of it, I'll point out that they aren't being asked to give away anything. They're being asked to stop trying to take something that doesn't belong to them. The idea was not their's, nor was it or its use exclusive to them. The purpose of patents was to encourage ideas, not direct money to big buisness who can afford to file dozens of supirious patents.
I'm an Apple shareholder, and one fine day on the shitter I was reading their 10-K (annual SEC filing), and noticed this interesting quote on page 6, under "PATENTS, TRADEMARKS, COPYRIGHTS AND LICENSES":
I thought that was an interesting thing to write, I wonder what, say, Amazon or Microsoft say in their filings about patents?
If anything comes of this patent (I doubt anything will, despite the sensationalist /. headline), you can use that in your letters to Apple or something.
http://www.w3.org/Graphics/PNG/ is the page on the W3C's site on the subject.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
I posted this before as AC, but since it didn't get any points, I thought no one would see it, and I _do_ think it might help.
Actually, Alvy Ray Smith with Ed Catmull created an alpha compositing system in 1978 while Ed Catmull was doing a paper for SIGGRAPH '78.
He states this in his paper "Alpha and the History of Digital Compositing" in August 1995.
He says that his earliest dated documentation he has for that code is dated January 13, 1978. He specifically showed compositing an alpha image on a background which should just be like another image. I hope this helps
Guess what? I got a fever! And the only prescription.. is more cowbell!
from the W3C Patent statement summary:
...
[snip]
Apple informed the SVG 1.0 Working Group very early in the SVG 1.0 process of the patent they listed in their license statement. The SVG Working Group made a concerted effort to produce a specification that does not require implementors to infringe the patent.
[snip]
Member Name -/-Patent Claim -/- License
Adobe -- None -- Royalty-Free --
Apple -- Patent: US 5379129 -- RAND --
uh, you are aware that this story is about Apple, and not Adobe, right?
When in doubt, have a man come through a door with a gun in his hand.
As other posters have mentioned:
1) This is obvious.
2) There is prior art.
So even if Apple decided to try and enforce it, it'd get shot down however:
3) Apple has already allowed royalty free use of this patent.
Seriously folks, this story is just silly. Think for a moment how many things out there use multi level alpha transparency. All 3d cards from the Voodoo on do, Windows does in movie file formats and in the UI in XP, a bunch of X WMs do. If Apple tried to enforce this they'd have legal teams from all over after them, fact aside that they've already said they won't.
Just because a company has a stupid patent doesn't mean they will try and enforce it.
7. A method as in claim 1 wherein said method produces anti-aliased text in said destination image by performing the method with the
source image being a pattern and the mask image being anti-aliased text.
(Claim 1 is the basic alpha-transparency concept).
Suppose that someone comes up with prior art that invalidates claim 1. Apple can still claim rights over the use of this technique for anti-aliased text unless someone can show prior art which covers that specific application. So don't just look for prior descriptions of alpha-transparency: look for prior use of alpha transparency for text, and anything else in the claims.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
Have we already forgot the GIF fiasco?
It was well known that de-facto standard for file compression in the net, "compress", was covered by the Unisys compression patent. However, showed no interest in enforcing the patent outside hardware (modems and the like), and would informally tell people who asked that.
Nonetheless the FSF insisted on having a patent free compression format for use by GNU, and eventually settled on gzip. This made some people angry, it was annoying to have to deal with a new compression format, and they claimed the FSF was seeing ghosts and that Unisys would never change their policy.
However, as we all know, Unisys *did* change their policy, allthough the target wasn't compress (which meanwhile had lost most of its markedshare to gzip), but GIF which used the same algorithm internally, and had become a big thing thanks to the WWW. Thankfully, at that time we had gzip, and could create PNG fast using the same code.
The morale "they haven't enforced the patent yet" provide false security. Companies don't enforce software patents until it become economically profitable to do so, typically when the algorithm is in so common use that it will be expensive to switch to an alternative. What we need is a legally binding promise not to enforce the patent.
The patent only applies to triple alpha channels, i.e., where the alpha channel is itself an RGB value, and the source and destination images are blended channel by channel according to the RGB values in the triple alpha channel.
It seems like an obvious extension of alpha blending (which was around for a while and is referenced in the patent) but that didn't stop Apple. HURR! WE R SMRT!
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
Alpha compositing is dead obvious to even the most naive thinker
This argument is raised every time there is a patent dispute discussed on slashdot yet I'm always a little uncomfortable with it. We say something is "obvious" but we say so many years after it was invented (perhaps) and patented; years during which we have used it and become familiar with the concept. Was it really obvious when it was developed and patented or has it only become "obvious" because of it's subsequent widespread use and our consequent familialarity with the concepts involved?
In this particular case I suspect that the concept was indeed obvious by 1992 when the patent was issued - that seems pretty late in the game for such a basic concept in computer graphics. If it was obvious it won't be hard to find prior art. But in general we should recognise that concepts that are obvious to us now after long use were often breakthrough innovations obvious to no one when they were first developed.
Alpha blending is directly contrasted to their method in the patent itself. This is no threat to the patent-free status of PNG or MNG.
Now this leads to the ongoing quandry of patent law that nobody seems to have a good solution for. Let us assume for the moment that we have iron clad evidence of prior art, the only way to overturn the patent is a court challenge. Court challenges cost money.
Big corporartions won't challenge a patent in court because there's a huge financial disincentive to do it. They could spend years in court and blow tons of money and still possibly lose. On the other hand, the patent holder will license the patent to them for a less exhorbitant sum. If Adobe had to pay to license PNG from Apple, they'd just pay the fee and pass the extra cost directly to the consumer and not bat an eye.
The people who have the most to gain from challenging patents are small ISV's because they can hardly afford to be dumping limited resources into royalties. That problem is made even more complicated when you are talking about open source development. Of course they can neither afford royalty payments nor the court costs and time necessary to fight the patent. If a patent is going to expire in 4 or 5 years, why bother fighting because by the time you get through the courts it won't matter anymore.
The end result of this is that innovation by small software vendors and open source developers is totally crippled by patents. Whether a patent is for a legitimate innovation or not is irrelevant to these groups because as soon as it gets approved and somebody demonstrates a willingness to enforce it, it becomes off limits to these groups.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service