🚀 go-pugleaf

Ozan Yigit (oz@yunexus.yorku.ca) asks:
> In article <9007271812.AA09756@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes: 
> >The patent was later granted, and now Unisys says we're
> >not allowed to run compress without their permission.
>
> Is this what unisys actually said (or put it in writing) to FSF, or
> someone else running compress, or is it your interpretation of something
> thay may have said regarding the algorithm to someone else, obtained
> hear-say, phrased in a unique (!) way by you?

The short answer is yes, Unisys says we're not allowed to run compress
without their permission.

I will let Unisys give the long answer.  This is the text of a letter
published on page 8 of the March 1990 issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal.

 Dear DDJ,
   In the "Letters" column of your December 1989 issue, Mark Nelson
 discusses U.S. Patent 4,558,302 entitled ``High Speed Data Compression and
 Decompression Apparatus and Method.''  The patent was developed by Terry
 Welch, a former Unisys employee, and is owned by Unisys.  According to Mr.
 Nelson, I have been quoted as saying that Unisys will ``license the
 algorithm for a one time fee of $20,000.''  As a concession to the modem
 industry, Unisys has agreed to license the patent to modem manufacturers
 for use in modems conforming to the V42.bis data compression standard
 promulgated by CCITT, for a one-time fee of $20,000.  This $20,000 license,
 however, is not a general license under all applications of our patent but
 is limited to the specific application discussed above.
   Responding to the second paragraph of Nelson's remarks, Unisys is
 actively looking into the possibility that a large number of software
 developers may be infringing one or more of our data compression patents.
 We have only recently become aware of these potential infringers and the
 process of taking action will take some time.
   Unisys is happy to accept inquiries from persons interested in acquiring
 a license to U.S. Patent 4,558,302.  If your readers have any further
 questions, they should contact Mr. Edmund Chung of our licensing office, at
 313-972-7114.
 					Robert S. Bramson
 					Unisys
 					Blue Bell, Penn.

Although algorithms are not supposed to be patentable, companies such as
Unisys and others are claiming that they are.  The courts seem to be very
confused and have issued numerous conflicting judgements which range from
affirming that algorithms are not patentable, to allowing algorithms to be
"safeguarded" by patent (but not actually patented -- I don't understand
this either), to seeming to uphold patents on algorithms.

I doubt that this patent will be upheld in court, but stranger things have
happened.  Unisys isn't being particularly magnanimous in its modem
licensing arrangement, since it's getting $20,000 for nothing.  Unisys
plans to pursue other users of the algorithm, and the second paragraph of
Bramson's letter is a transparent attempt to avoid estoppel.  (If you know
about an infringement but don't do anything about it, you are considered to
have condoned it; does anyone recall which issue of CACM the algorithm
appeared in?)

I trust that most of you are as disgusted by this as I am.

Have you sent in your League for Programming Freedom membership yet?

					-Michael Ernst
					 mernst@theory.lcs.mit.edu