PNG standard may violate patent!
Lawrence Foard
Frank T Lofaro <ftlo...@unlv.edu> wrote:
>The PNG (Portable Network Graphics) standard may violate a patent on
>host independent network byte order. Specifically patent number
>4,956,809.
It may, but I have a feeling that there is enough prior art to
fill a library. Of course overthrowing bogus patents takes money
which is a somewhat bigger problem...
--
------ Call the skeptic hotline 1-900-666-5555 talk to your own personal .
\ / skeptic 24 hours/day. >> http://www.worcester.com << . .
\ / Exonize- 1. To censor. 2. To crap on civil rights as a lame duck . . .
\/ 3. To trade liberty for security from bad words. . . . .
Frank T Lofaro
host independent network byte order. Specifically patent number
4,956,809.
I mentioned this a while ago on the Net, but no clear response on the
situation.
Can anyone tell me if PNG is under patent 4,956,809, if so, whether
the use of it being made is allowed, and if not, clear and convincing
evidence that it in fact does not fall under the patent?
Otherwise, PNG may end up in the situation that GIF is in today.
--
Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peacably
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Tom Lane
> The PNG (Portable Network Graphics) standard may violate a patent on
> host independent network byte order. Specifically patent number
> 4,956,809.
The entire Internet "infringes" that patent, and did when the patent was
granted. Another instance of gross stupidity on the part of the USPTO.
In other words, don't worry about it. If the holders were ever so
foolish as to try to sue someone with it, their patent would be
overturned in an eyeblink. Public prior art invalidates any patent,
and it won't be hard to come up with some for this one.
regards, tom lane
member, PNG development group
Kai Henningsen
> In article <404ceq$h...@homesick.cs.unlv.edu>,
> Frank T Lofaro <ftlo...@unlv.edu> wrote:
> >The PNG (Portable Network Graphics) standard may violate a patent on
> >host independent network byte order. Specifically patent number
> >4,956,809.
>
> It may, but I have a feeling that there is enough prior art to
> fill a library. Of course overthrowing bogus patents takes money
> which is a somewhat bigger problem...
Well, was *is* "network byte order"? It's nothing more than the idea that,
given two ways to do things that don't work together, pick one and make
everybody use it.
You'll find prior art back to before humans existed - hell, back to the
beginning of life: think of the L- and R-forms of organic chemicals.
Kai
--
>>> PFM-Mainz.de distributes mail bombs. <<<
Internet: k...@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!khms.westfalen.de!kai
http://www.westfalen.de/~kai/