🚀 go-pugleaf

jcburt@gatsibm.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) wrote:

[previous conversations deleted]

>Ummm slight difference in cases...Microsoft had an agreement with STAC
>for certain use of their (STAC's) technology. Microsoft apparently
>violated that agreement. Microsoft and STAC had an agreement going in.
>Unisys has no such agreement with the many developers building GIF
>applications. Unisys is attempting to collect royalties from these
>developers. STAC attempted to protect their "intellectual property"
>right from the start with its agreements with Microsoft. Unisys has
>made no such effort to protect their "intellectual property".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wait a minute, that's what this is all about. Compuserve used
(read stolen) a patented technology from Unisys. As soon as
Unisys found out about it they waltzed on over to Compuserve
and introduced their attorneys.

If I'm following your argument, you can steal my car, cut it up
and sell it for parts. Then when I go out to my garage and
discover it's missing, you have done no wrong because I didn't
catch you in the act. BZZZZZT! Wrong

>
>One of the reasons GZIP was developed was because Unisys was making
>these same noises about the UNIX "compress" and "zcat"
>utilities. After much outcry (similar to what is occuring with GIF)
>FSF decided to "roll their own" compression utility to replace zcat
>and company..
>

And this is a Good Thing. Unfortunately, it doesn't alter the facts in this
case.

>The problem with software patents is that they stifle progress in a
>rapidly evolving market. Patent laws were originally written to
>
> ... blah blah blah ...

[continue whining]

Mark