Slashdot Mirror
Truth Behind the ClearType/OpenSUSE FUD
Kennon writes "Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols over at Linux Watch clears up the FUD around Tuesday's Slashdot discussion concerning OpenSUSE, ClearType, and patent deals with Microsoft."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I think ClearType is a great idea
Before adopting WHATWG, read the moonlight.NET EULA [http://www.microsoft.com/interop/msnovellcollab/moonlight.mspx]
To come up with an idea, prevent others from working on it, and to claim all work in the area as their own property. And make claims of future work as well: "more patents to come." Sounds like pirating to me. Microsoft is raping and pillaging the software community.
This change was last summer, pre-microvell, so the news actually would have been if OpenSUSE was enabling it and taking advantage of MS' patent covenant for Novell customers and OpenSUSE contributors while other distros couldn't.
MS' plan to fragment the community is only effective if Novell has customers and developers supporting them, otherwise the covenant is irrelevant. Boycott Novell, the rest takes care of itself.
--10scjed IANAL,AFAIK
So it would seem that the disabling of FreeType is more coincident than anything else. It's possible for parallel processes to affect the same thing but have no overt connection.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
--10scjed IANAL,AFAIK
The problem isn't sub-pixel rendering in general (if it was, any anti-aliasing feature would be covered by these patents). ClearType is taking avantake of the way of drawing pixels LCDs use (red, green, blue standing next to each other instead of being mixed together) to increase anti-aliasing even further. This technology is LCD-specific and patented by Microsoft.
I like Suse and Novell does a lot for open source, I hope they come through this arrangement ok, but I'm switched to Debian.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
- 1991: Word for Windows 2.0
- 1992: Excel 4.0
- 1993: Visual Basic 3.0
- 1996: Windows NT 4.0
- 2001: ClearType
Notice any clustering of the dates? With hundreds of billions in revenue, all they can produce in over a decade is ClearType? Let them have it -- we'll live with seeing our font pixels.Can it not be argued, then, that program authors cannot be sued for patent infringement? They only write programs "in the abstract", they don't combine it with any device, neither explicitly nor implicitly. That's done by the end user at the time of running the program. Of course, as such, such an argument wouldn't protect the end user, but is a programmer really vulnerable to software patents?
Ballmer asked his lawyers for a patent on his peener
The prototype was quarter scale and looked like a pipe cleaner
Prior art be damned! He told the counsels - get to working!
I can prove it's novel just by bellowing and jerking!
Cake or Death? Cake Please!
I did a 'less * | grep ClearType' in several of the directories in the FreeType source tree, and could not find the mentioned files.
Anyone know where they are at?
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
Only if it's assumed (and legally able to be assumed) that they've compiled and run the program in the course of developing it.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
Unless you call the lcd monitor a device.... however looking at
Methods and systems for hinting fonts
A system for providing a hinted TrueType font comprising: one or more computer-readable media; one or more processors; computer-readable instructions on the one or more computer-readable media which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to implement a method comprising
They work arround it by nameing the computer processor as a device.... Not sure if this is really valid.
I believe, it only works on CRTs, if you pump up the resolution to the technical maximum. When I tried ClearType on a CRT (in 1024*768) a few years ago, it looked like crap.
Since when is disagreeing with a companies business decisions not a good reason to stop using their products? That's kinda the only way for the public at large to keep corporations even remotely close to ethical (not that it always works). You may not agree that Novell has done anything worth boycotting them for, but isn't that up to their customers (in this case Linux users) to decide? You make your choice, and even try to make others see it your way, but don't knock the system. It may not be perfect, but it's all we got.
The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
There seems to be a confusion of terminology in the above, but I admit I may be misreading it.
Anti-aliasing is not the same thing as sub-pixel rendering, which is orthogonal to anti-aliasing and can be (and almost always is) combined with it.
Anti-aliasing is merely the use of different shades to adjust the sharpness of object boundaries, where the shade is based upon the amount of a pixel the objects covering that pixel would intersect. While this sounds like something that would be describable by the term "sub-pixel rendering" if, for a moment, you assume you would divide the pixel into smaller virtual pixels to calculate the end result, that's not what sub-pixel rendering refers to. The term "sub-pixel" is not being used to describe these smaller "virtual pixels".
In an LCD a pixel is made up of three "sub-pixels": real, discrete, lighting elements that together illuminate one complete pixel. The sub-pixels are the three primary colours and are almost always mounted side by side as three thin strips. Sub-pixel rendering is the technique of using the separate red, green, and blue sub-pixels of an LCD "pixel" in isolation to improve the sharpness of object boundaries. When used, the screen effectively has an increased horizonal resolution of 3x the regular resolution, so a 1400x1050 screen effectively becomes 4200x1050.
It is usually, if not always, used in conjunction with regular anti-aliasing (though technically it doesn't need to be.)
Microsoft's patents, as I understand it, cover the latter, and in particular focus on preventing "colour fringing" that is otherwise a major downside of using sub-pixel rendering.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You see, I consider technological partners of my vendor to have merit while selecting an OS. If the partner is well known of thier abusive bahavior and I'll invest time/hard-cold-cash into OS that can be somehow "pushed-around", I'll consider it as a bad thing.
Imagine this: I run a company that has 10 servers running OS developed by Company X who partners with Company Z. I run a Open Source implementation of, let say, Exchange. It's core of my operations. I contribute code and maintain al servers. But then, Company Z says: Hey, Company X, renember the $AMOUNT you get? Drop support for libexchange from all you packages.
Now, I will have to a) put up with it, build my custom packages and deal with security issues for the OS I've paid, b) switch to other distro, and that would cost me in time, customers anger and relearning system tools.
Rocksteady, are you ready to ska?
The other parties that are vulnerable are hardware vendors and system OEMs that offer to pre-load FLOSS on their hardware. Dell/HP/IBM and their like will generally avoid clear-cut legal liabilities. They marry a device to software as a normal part of their business model.
Take the Blackberry as an example of married software and hardware that infringes patents. If someone else wrote the software, RIM still has the liability because they did the combining of software and hardware into a device.
Does anyone know if there has been a case of an end-user being sued for patent infringement?
w2^7me out.
From Wikipedia:
The first light pen was used around 1957 on the Lincoln TX-0 computer at the MIT Lincoln Laboratory.Gibson was born in 1955. That's some fast work!
"You aren't making any sort of choice based on the merits of the system, just on politics and the fact that you dislike microsoft"
I feel that purchasing *anything is inherently political. You could go mad with guilt hunting down all the ramifications of every purchase you make, so you pick your boycotts carefully. But software purchases are especially political because the very fact that code is treated as a *product results from the government-granted monopoly we call copyright.
Thought experiment: if Apple made a similar deal with -- say -- Mandriva, would we be pist?
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
First off, despite the popularity of bashing SuSE these days, most or all "purist" linux distros do the same thing, this is not just a Novell/SuSE issue. By "purist", I am referring to distros which try to stay as close to 100% open source and patent-infringment-free as possible. Fedora is the prime example of such a distro, even more so than SuSE. On whole, fedora is even more conservative than SuSE, and also has Freetype compiled in its non-patent-infringing way, yet, hypocritically, none of the SuSE bashers are bashing Fedora over this.
Second, the deal between Novell and Microsoft regarding patents was an agreement not to sue Novell's customers over patent infringement. While this might be viewed as a "patent license", it is not an explicit license and thus very limited. The implication is that it would only cover inadvertent patent violations, for example by redistributing someone elses software. Novell probably still has an obligation not to infringe any patents that it has not been granted an explicit license to use.
Microsoft may have a patent on ClearType, but they didn't invent it. We did the same thing in the Commodore 64 days with regards to fonts in graphics. I clearly recall zooming in on text and seeing different colors in the transition from text to background. I've spent many hundred hours doing graphic arts on the Commodore 64 and have been published.
I guess prior art doesn't apply to patents anymore?
"Sub-pixel font rendering with Free&Clear - Microsoft says they invented their "ClearType" technology, but I quickly and independently "invented" the same thing . . . as had others who came years before. It is very cool, but rather obvious. "
http://www.grc.com/ct/cleartype.htm
Mod parent up! That is exactly right and the full scope can be found on Steve Gibson's ClearType pages. What they have patented is simple filtering of sub-pixel rendering. That is just a simple combination of two very old techniques, color filtering is used in everything from blur filters to fire effects to texture mapping. Sub-pixel rendering too, has been used for ages to increase the apparent screen resolution.
Football Odds
Ok, software is just instructions for your computer right?, sort of like a receipe for you computer to "cook". That being the case and the fact that software code (instructions) can be patented. Then I have a very, very good idea. I'm going to patent receipes, I'll start with breads, then everyone will need to get their bread reciepes from me. What do you think?
Well except the sub pixel anti-aliasing they claim as their invention was invented by Steve Wozniak a couple of decades earlier.
So yeh, Microsoft is raping and pillaging the software community. The guy wants to avoid a patent fight spat with Microsoft, he knows he'll win, but the patent nuisance (for a patent that should never have been issued) is the problem here.
Some people would call it fraud, to apply and continue to use a patent you know had/has prior art.
Gibson have a "Who Did It First?" text regarding sub-pixel rendering as well:
http://www.grc.com/ctwho.htm
Not all countries recognise software patents, so i assume this patents doesnt apply in all countries.
Why do we force software patents on people who live in non-software patent countries ?
"You may not agree that Novell has done anything worth boycotting them for, but isn't that up to their customers (in this case Linux users) to decide?"
Customers yes. Linux user no. The people that download OpenSuse are not Novell customers.
But shouldn't people also think before speak or in this case post.
All the flames at Novell over FreeType was total FUD worthy of Microsoft at it's worst.
This was a case of way to many idiots thinking they had all the answer but where totally full of pre-compost.
Anyone that flamed Novell for turning off the ClearType like features in Freetype2 they where 100% wrong. It really is as simple as that. Every anti Novell post in that Slashdot thread is -5 Troll.
Trying to that statements is also wrong. A mistake is what Wise men makes and a fool defends.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Petty politics or genuine concern that Microsoft and Novell are preparing to give the FLOSS community a good shafting? It's all in the semantics.
No. That agreement is tantamount to Novell saying: 'yes, GNU/Linux does infringe upon Microsoft patents.' It gives Ballmer evidence to extort money from GNU/Linux users, will probably be used in future lawsuits by Microsoft and has been the basis of much anti-GNU/Linux FUD.
What is particularly bad for the community is the indemnity stops with the Novell customers, the development community is very much left out in the cold. I'm scared of releasing my code under a FLOSS license because of patent FUD. It might be an indemnity agreement, but it's a thinly veiled threat too.
You speak of choice, yet the Microsoft/Novell deal has taken customers away from other distros (for all the wrong reasons). The whole point of the deal is to eliminate choice and leave Microsoft with just one competitor to deal with: Novell.
If a company kills babies, I'm not going to buy their products. In fact I'll actively make others aware of their actions, this is not petty, I would consider it my moral duty. As a geek Novell and Microsoft have done something far worse: gone against the spirit (if not the letter) of the GPL. It is therefore my moral duty to boycott their products and advise everyone (who would know what I'm talking about) to do the same.
I'm going to transform myself into a mighty hawk. Either that or I'll just go and work at Dixons, haven't decided yet.
Imagine if it were simpler: Suppose Company A made a great product but killed babies. And Company B made a mediocre product but saved babies. Which product would you buy? Naturally, life isn't that simple. But you can't just ignore the behavior of a company when buying their products. Every dollar you spend is a vote that money should go toward that organization. Knowing that, I don't want money going toward thes Microsofts, Novells, and SCOs of the world. The agreement is harmless to "the community." It's an indemnity agreement! That's about the most benign thing two companies could possibly sign. Okay, so onto the subject of Novell specifically. By signing that deal, Novell is openly acknowledging that Linux infringes on Microsoft patents. And when Microsoft sues someone, they can refer to that indemnity deal as evidence that the patent is valid and that the infringement did occur. Microsoft has even openly stated that this deal is because Novell knows of such infringement. And Novell denying it is obviously a lie since there is no other reason for them to go into the deal. Novell is playing politics with someone else's intellectual property and that stinks. So no, I won't support them in it. And no, that doesn't make me a moron.
It's interesting because the patent combines 2 existing techniques to increase apparent resolution on a hardware display. I'd argue firstly that it isn't novel, the only reason MS were able to get this patent is because early LCD costs were prohibitively expensive. That prevented the wider hacker community from "inventing" (sic) this first.
Secondly, it's a patent on pure software, simply optimizing output for a specific display type.
That doesn't mean the feature didn't work. It just means the feature wasn't beneficial at that resolution. In other words, "It's not a bug, it's a feature!" =)
Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
It's not as if FreeType and MS' are the only subpixel technologies around; OS X has had it since version 10.3. Microsoft's isn't even particularly good, compared to the others.
At least the brouhaha, while a waste of energy and attention like all FUD, is strong evidence, if any more were required, that software patents are a bad idea.
you had me at #!
Given that Microsoft has agreed not to sue Novell's customers over patent infringements then Novell just needs to have customers that do the compiling and testing of software for Novell.
;).
Basically the coders just write code without testing and then check it in, and the customers download, compile (if necessary) and test it.
Heck, something like this already happens in many software companies around the world
Microsoft has even openly stated that this deal is because Novell knows of such infringement. And Novell denying it is obviously a lie since there is no other reason for them to go into the deal. Novell is playing politics with someone else's intellectual property and that stinks.
Well put, please mod parent up.
"but money is the God of Algiers & Mahomet their prophet." - Rich. O'Bryen June 8th 1786
You can't sue an end user for patent infringement because they're not selling it or making a profit off of it. And if they are selling it, they're no longer the end user.
Its perfectly legal---and theoretically, encouraged---to take a patent and use it to build the system at home. Theoretically, patents are to be in such detail that the invention they patent may be recreated from the patent.
IANAL.
Mod parent *up*, please!
The problem is not Linux, MS, Novell, etc. - the problem is you, me, US. Since when have knee-jerk reactions ever benefited anyone - long-term, I mean? Isn't using the brain and controlling ones natural pre-human genetically coded urges a beautiful thing? What I mean: Giving in to that first impulse of "kill them!" (or "slap them!", less strong) when you THINK someone else did something wrong (cut you off in traffic, stole your girlfriend, etc.) is natural, sure.
However, question is, is it sane? Which means nothing else but is it beneficial to you/us - long-term?
There seem to be way too many frustrated single males posting on Slashdot... how else can obvious OPINION pieces be modded "+5 Insightful" - only because they show the posters very strong superficial opinions against the "foe of the day/week/month"?
Since there are WAY more useless postings/articles/etc. expressing opinions, repeating hearsay, and all without ANY kind of fact-checking or thinking, maybe it's time to create a tax on them... okay, I pay the first 6 cents since I don't have too much to say myself but to express an opinion. Well, at least I *know* that.
(Perhaps this is some of that British humour you were talking about)...
ClearType works wonderfully on my LCDs, much better with it enable than without it enabled. Worked wonderfully on my CRTs, when I used them, as well. Others report different results. Results, therefore, may vary.
If a company kills babies, I'm not going to buy their products. In fact I'll actively make others aware of their actions, this is not petty, I would consider it my moral duty. As a geek Novell and Microsoft have done something far worse: gone against the spirit (if not the letter) of the GPL.
Yes I agree, the GPL is far more precious than babies or even women to geeks!
--- Duey Finster http://www.dueyfinster.com
Ok, so I'm late to the party, and this might be a little off-topic, but... well, patent issues aren't new for the FreeType devs. They used to (I think its gone now) have an #ifdef for a rendering technique that, like this one, was by default disabled. That particular one (I forget what it covered) infringed on patents held by Apple. It was off by default to keep the default build of the library OSS-friendly. Anyway, to make a long story short, the FT devs did eventually develop a better alternative to Apple's patented technique and now that particular limitation is history. FT v2.1.3, iirc.
Reading the article (and, sorry, I missed the original FUD), this looks to be more of the same. FT devs are concerned that they have something in the library that might infringe a patent. So, as before, they mark it with an #ifdef and, as before, disable it by default so that the library is OSS-friendly. SOP for them, and given their charter is to create a free alternative to a technology that is swarming with proprietary IP, it comes with the territory. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. If history is any guide, the devs will come up with a patent-free alternative that is better than the original, its just a matter of time. Until then you'll have to live with the fact that the distro vendors will ship pre-built versions with the feature turned off so they can CYA. The code is still there, and the only thing stopping you from enabling it is 1) your ability to build from source, and 2) your conscience, depending on how you feel about software patents.
Depends on how you look at it. Microsoft is worth a couple of hundred billion dollars. That money came from somewhere (a market aberration, monopolistic practices etc). Now if that money had been used for other purposes no matter what marginal percentage you take out of it, there will inevitably be babies impacted :).
While the issue with ClearType is clearly not limited to Novell or SUSE (pick your flavor), that does not mean that Microsuck's patents are not an issue. This is an example of software patents affecting any users with a current distro.
While it turns out that Novell did not enable the functionality in their distro, there is still a possibility that they could enable it and claim that the rest of the Linux userbase could not. There is also the problem of sofware patents which do exist, and the fact that the developers of the FreeType package decided to disable part of the code because of the existence of software patents. Finally, there is also the problem of Novell, once again, not coming out and saying that they intended to defend anybody but their "customers", even though Free Software developers from around the world actually contributed their market product to them free of charge.
There was no FUD in the story. A blogger had an opinion that turned out not to be true. Go figure. This is a far cry from the type of marketing based smear campaign that The Beast at Redmond is famous for.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
Most of us also had a knee-jerk reaction against the DMCA. Are you going to consider that on it's merits, too? Just because a reaction is knee-jerk doesn't mean it's wrong.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Well except the sub pixel anti-aliasing they claim as their invention was invented by Steve Wozniak a couple of decades earlier.
I think it was even earlier than that, there were some links in yesterday's discussion to what looks like exactly the same feature, being investigated by Xerox even earlier. The prior art on at least the most general concepts of this (subpixel rendering by switching on individual Red, Green, or Blue color elements in a display) seems pretty damning.
But then again, the prior art against Microsoft's FAT patents was pretty damning too, and it even went through two USPTO reviews that said the patents should be invalidated, but at the 11th hour there was an additional review and suddenly they were "novel and non-obvious" again. Makes you wonder exactly Microsoft has by the short hairs that made a phone call to smooth things over... If they really need these patents, they'll never be overturned regardless of the obviousness of the prior art; the patent system is too thoroughly corrupt.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The fanatics at FSF who want to destroy Suse in order to promote their "free" (read: we're in charge of what software you're allowed to use) software agenda jumped all over this before any facts were known.
Kudos to Steve for doing what journalists should do - find out the facts and present them clearly.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
According to Wikipedia you're correct. Patents officially suck.