|
| 1 | +The following article from James A. Woods, one of the earlier |
| 2 | +authors of compress, explains its relationship to the Unisys |
| 3 | +patent on the LZW compression method: |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +From uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!wuarchive!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!agate!riacs!jaw Wed Aug 1 15:06:59 EDT 1990 |
| 6 | +Article: 1282 of gnu.misc.discuss |
| 7 | +Path: alembic!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!wuarchive!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!agate!riacs!jaw |
| 8 | +From: [email protected] (James A. Woods) |
| 9 | +Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss |
| 10 | +Subject: Sperry patent #4,558,302 does *not* affect 'compress' |
| 11 | +Keywords: data compression, algorithm, patent |
| 12 | + |
| 13 | +Date: 31 Jul 90 22:09:35 GMT |
| 14 | +Organization: RIACS, NASA Ames Research Center |
| 15 | +Lines: 69 |
| 16 | + |
| 17 | +# "The chief defect of Henry King |
| 18 | + Was chewing little bits of string." |
| 19 | + |
| 20 | + -- Hilaire Belloc, Cautionary Tales [1907] |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | + As a co-author of 'compress' who has had contact with an attorney for |
| 23 | +Unisys (nee Sperry), I would like to relay a very basic admission from Unisys |
| 24 | +that noncommercial use of 'compress' is perfectly legal. 'Compress' is also |
| 25 | +commercially distributed by AT&T as part of Unix System 5 release 4, |
| 26 | +with no further restrictions placed upon the use of the binary, as far |
| 27 | +as I am aware. |
| 28 | + |
| 29 | + From conversations with Professor Abraham Lempel and others, it |
| 30 | +appears that neither AT&T, Sun Microsystems, Hewlett Packard, nor IBM |
| 31 | +are paying any sort of license fees to Unisys in conjunction with patent |
| 32 | +#4,558,302. It may be true that some organizations are paying fees for |
| 33 | +data compression technology licensed from one or more of the many holders |
| 34 | +of compression patents, but this is all independent from 'compress'. |
| 35 | + |
| 36 | + In particular, I received a letter at NASA dated October 1, 1987 from |
| 37 | +John B. Sowell of the Unisys law department, informing me for the first |
| 38 | +time that some form of LZW was patented. I naturally expressed |
| 39 | +skepticism that an algorithm could be patented (a murky legal area |
| 40 | +which remains so), stated that 'compress' is not identical to LZW, |
| 41 | +and in fact was designed, developed, and distributed before the ink |
| 42 | +on the patent was dry. Several telephone conversations later, Mr. Sowell |
| 43 | +intimated that they would *not* seek any fees from users of 'compress' |
| 44 | +but instead were signing licensees for hardware implementations of LZW. |
| 45 | + |
| 46 | + So, regardless of what you believe about a shady legal area, if anyone |
| 47 | +from Unisys contacts you to extract tribute for the use of 'compress', please |
| 48 | +tell them that, first, it is not theirs to begin with, and, second, there is |
| 49 | +someone who will testify in court about the conversation above. |
| 50 | +It is not even clear if anyone can "own" 'compress', since original developer |
| 51 | +Spencer Thomas, myself, and others placed the code in the public domain |
| 52 | +long before the adoption of the Berne copyright convention. |
| 53 | + |
| 54 | + In light of the events above, it seems that the Free Software |
| 55 | +Foundation is being unduly paranoid about the use of 'compress'. |
| 56 | +Now I can well believe that FSF is more likely to be a legal target |
| 57 | +than a behemoth like AT&T, but if they are simply redistributing |
| 58 | +untouched free software developed years ago in the public sector, |
| 59 | +I see no problem. |
| 60 | + |
| 61 | + Aside: I am investigating, possibly for a case history to be |
| 62 | +recycled to USENET, the particulars of data compression patents. |
| 63 | +I am aware of the following patents: IBM's Miller-Wegman LZ variant, |
| 64 | +those of Telcor and ACT [losing candidates for the British Telecom modem |
| 65 | +standard], James A. Storer's work on limited lookahead as explicated in his |
| 66 | +text "Data Compression (methods and theory)", Computer Science Press, 1988, |
| 67 | +and the various patents pending associated with the Fiala and Greene |
| 68 | +CACM article of April, 1989 on textual substitution methods. |
| 69 | +If you have any lore, send it this way. |
| 70 | + |
| 71 | + |
| 72 | + |
| 73 | + Sincerely, |
| 74 | + |
| 75 | + James A. Woods |
| 76 | + NASA Ames Research Center (RIACS) |
| 77 | + |
| 78 | + |
| 79 | + |
| 80 | +P.S. The algorithm patent issue certainly is a "topic A" at the moment. |
| 81 | +One useful reference is the review article by Anthony and Colwell -- |
| 82 | +"Litigating the Validity and Infringement of Software Patents" in |
| 83 | +Washington and Lee Law Review, volume 41, fall 1984. I know Robert Colwell |
| 84 | +personally. As a practicing patent attorney, he tells me that, at a minimum, |
| 85 | +use of an invention "for research purposes" is legitimate. |
0 commit comments