Wasn't a 'quality' example of that company in Idaho that sued
Microscrap for infringement (actually stole it I believe) and they
settled with them for 120 million, 80 cash and 40 over the next
year, then Microscrap got rights to include the technology (compression)
in the Windoze environment?  That was a good one, yet the reality
is that the 120 million paid (for a simple disk space saver) was
short lived in need, we have 40+ gig drives for 300 bucks or so,
and that cost had to be passed on to the consumer.

So in the 'best' case situation shows that the only ones that win
are the few, and the consumer generally loses.

\t

--

Please remove dot nospamski dot from the return address.

----------
>From: "Jarvis, Robert P." <Jarvisb at timken.com>
>To: "'squeak at cs.uiuc.edu'" <squeak at cs.uiuc.edu>
>Subject: RE: True Type Fonts.
>Date: Fri, Dec 10, 1999, 1:24 PM
>

> Perhaps, but one of the purposes of holding a patent is give one grounds for
> dragging ones opponents into lengthy and, most important, expensive legal
> battles, the purpose of which is to distract the opponent and drain their
> resources.  If someone who is reasonably well funded, such as Apple, takes
> it into their collective heads to squash a freeware provider based on patent
> infringement, I do not doubt that they can.  They don't have to win the case
> on its merits - they just have to delay, delay, delay until the target of
> their ire runs out of money.  Then they win.
>
> Bob Jarvis
> Compuware @ Timken
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: agree at carltonfields.com [SMTP:agree at carltonfields.com]
>> Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 1:35 PM
>> To: Alan.Kay at disney.com; squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
>> Subject: RE: True Type Fonts.
>>
>> Not meaning to start a patent war, but the conclusion Alan reaches
>> shouldn't be jumped to without first, at least, looking at the patents and
>> determining what is CLAIMED.  Even when a general subject matter is
>> claimed, subtle nuances on the prior art can be sufficient (and morally
>> defensible in many cases) for patent protection.
>>
>> Catapults, wood, hammers and nails have been around forever, but none of
>> this would preclude a patent on a clever new trebuchet design.
>>
>> My suggestion is not to guess.  At least get the patents (all of which are
>> available both in printable and text-searchable form at
>> http:www.uspto.gov) and see what is claimed.  Then, at least, you can be
>> assured that you are practicing the prior art.
>>
>> (And hey, there is nothing MORE FUN than "engineering around" a patent,
>> trust me!  Its easy to do, particularly in "crowded art" areas as Alan
>> suggests Truetype finds itself, and its usually successful when
>> undertaken.)
>>
>> Does anyone know the applicable patent numbers?
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: MIME :Alan.Kay at disney.com > Sent: Friday, December 10, 1999 1:06
>> PM
>> > To: squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
>> > Subject: Re: True Type Fonts.
>> > > > Bob --
>> > > It's likely that that FreeType is fine.
>> >      (Andrew is more cautious ...)
>> > I was at Apple when the TrueType stuff was done and I don't > recall
>> them
>> > doing anything that wasn't in prior art in the 70s (the > outline font
>> idea
>> > was first done by Patrick Baudelaire at PARC, Dick Shoup and I (and
>> > Negroponte's group at MIT) did various early version of > antialiased
>> fonts
>> > and came up with algorithms for same, Warnock at E&S and then PARC
>> > experimented with outline font conversion, hinting, etc., > Knuth did
>> many
>> > wonderful things in his pursuit of computer generated fonts, > etc.).
>> All of
>> > these are on record. It's the patent office that is to blame > for much
>> of
>> > this, in that they have been willing to grant patents on just about
>> > anything for the last 30 or so years without vetting them, but simply
>> > leaving it up to unsophisticated people in civil courts (or > out of
>> court)
>> > to resolve issues. This has been/is terrible and needs to be >
>> combatted.
>> > > Cheers,
>> > > Alan
>> > > At 11:13 AM -0800 12/9/99, Bob Arning wrote:
>> > >On Thu, 09 Dec 1999 12:56:58 +0100 Henrik Gedenryd
>> > ><Henrik.Gedenryd at lucs.lu.se> wrote:
>> > >>And I don't think releasing your own code could ever get > you into
>> trouble,
>> > >>could it? As long as everyone dl'ed the FreeType code > themselves. Of
>> course,
>> > >>there might be a problem if you needed to modify the FT > code, but I
>> was
>> > >>thinking you would only need to write an interface to it.
>> > >>
>> > >>What can you code do?
>> > >>
>> > >>And do you know if FT, when it has applied hinting to an > outline,
>> can
>> > >>deliver the results to Squeak in the form of outlines or a pixmap?
>> > >
>> > >Henrik,
>> > >
>> > >The interface I wrote uses FreeType to generate pixmaps > (that may be
>> the
>> > >only option, though I don't recall for sure). The pixmaps >
>> (anti-aliased)
>> > >are then converted to 8-bit deep forms for display using the > normal
>> squeak
>> > >StrikeFont routines.
>> > >
>> > >It may well be that the patent issues referred to by the > FreeType web
>> page
>> > >will be resolved someday in an acceptable way, but until > then, it's
>> just a
>> > >bit too spooky.
>> > >
>> > >Cheers,
>> > >Bob
>