On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 13:43:11 +0100 (CET), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Menedetter) wrote:
> Hi
> 05 Feb 2001, "Samuel W. Heywood" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> First of all, the logic of that question is kind of like,
>>> "If a 55mph speed limit exists, then why are so many people driving
>>> faster than that?" ;-)
> SH> No, the logic of that question is kind of like:
> SH> "If it is against the law to permit a witch to live then why do we no
> SH> longer have have witch trials?" The answer of course is that laws
> SH> prohibiting the practice of witchcraft would not in these modern times
> SH> likely to be considered valid by the courts.
> no steve's example is IMHO far better suited ;)
No it is not. No one questions the validity of the 55 mph speed limit law.
Everyone knows that it can be enforced if the authorities really want to
crack down on the violators. So the speed limit violators are just
questioning whether they are likely to get caught if they violate the law.
The legal basis for the speed limit law is not subject to any serious
challenge.
> unisys has the legal patent of the LZW algorithm incorporated into GIF.
> Also it is legal to use GIFs, only the authors of programs have to pay
> licenses to unisys if their program can read/write or manipulate GIFs, and
> therefor needs the compression algorithm to be able to do this.
What if a programmer independently develops a different algorithm to
accomplish the same task? Would he need to buy a license from somebody
to use an algorithm of his own invention? Even if he were to use an
algorithm of someone else's invention, should an algorithm be licenseable
and patentable, as though it had the same status as a copyright for a
novel or a collection of poetry or a musical score? I think not. Copyright
protection should not be extended to computer algorithms. Requiring a
programmer to get a licence to incorporate a particular algorithm in his
program is like requiring a poet to get a licence to make use of iambic
pentameter in his poem.
> If the company doesn't pay license fees, it is not your problem, but that
> of the company !
> SH> If that is indeed the point being made by those claiming the
> SH> authority to require the licensing of gifs, then there might be some
> SH> validity to their claim. Perhaps their claims might be on shaky
> SH> grounds.
> no ... it is not
> SH> I don't know. This one would be an interesting case to argue before
> SH> the courts.
> you will loose ...
I said only that it would be an interesting case. I did not express an
interest in pursuing the matter. It would be interesting for the purpose
of clarifying whatever misunderstandings many people have concerning the
matter.
> unisys is IMHO the successor of the ancient company, which developed one of
> the first computers called univac.
I have heard the same story.
Sam Heywood
-- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/
