Andrew --

At 4:39 PM -0800 12/11/99, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
>If the patents are directed solely to the creation of hinted fonts,
>as Alan suggests may be the case, a rendering engine (as opposed to a
>hinted font editor program) would not be infringing.  Some support
>for this proposition can be found in the specification of the
>patents.  If it can be extended to a rendering engine, it strikes me
>as dangerous to ignore it.
>
>Is there any way simply to ask Apple, thereby finessing the need to
>consider the question further?  Consent is always the best defense.

The problem is that Apple's lawyers almost certainly do not understand the
patent content, and when lawyers don't understand the content, what do they
usually say? (heh heh)
     Again, having been an expert witness in many copyright and patent
suits, almost none of which have ever gone to "true justice" (largely
because judges and juries don't really understand the content, and --for
that reason -- corporate lawyers are too willing to settle out of court), I
have come to regard the current situation as a context-free game called
"bully", and the so-called "legalities" are best avoided.
     However, I do think consent is a good idea, but it has to be gotten
without raising hackles ... I will investigate -- but, again, I don't think
that there is anything to worry about here in the sense of actual justice.
As far as "fake justice": in America, anyone with enough money can cause
unlimited legal mischief about almost any technical issue -- for this case,
it's better to be invisible.

Cheers,

Alan