tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7081574254975040187..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Proprietary v open source software: more on removable featuresVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-32809444710918569422010-05-21T19:55:23.228+01:002010-05-21T19:55:23.228+01:00The GIF mess must surely be the greatest mutual IP...The GIF mess must surely be the greatest mutual IPR disaster in history.<br /><br />On the proprietor side it sure says something about a company that it had forgotten about the patent, and I am being charitable here and not implicate it was a thin excuse to slip out of passivity/estoppel/laches troubles. Following up with a land mark disaster in licensing really takes the cake. I thought it was well established that one should consider the case very carefully before going after end users. Embedded market, like cell phones and media players, seem like a more fruitful approach. And "bad publicity" must be the understatement of the month.<br /><br />The software community did not impress me either. Calling it the GIF patent actively confused the issue when only the compression was the issue. I do remember a proposal to replace the LZW with alternative compression (gzip?) but that was shot down, possibly as lacking in autistic qualities, as the burn all gifs movement gathered steam (or froth if you wish).<br /><br />The PNG was a disaster in itself too: at a time when animated GIFs were all the rage it did not help that PNGs were static, and the promise of alpha blending was insufficient compensation. Animation was moved over to the MNG project. Now: when was the last time you encountered a MNG? I cannot say I have been overrun by them lately.<br /><br />Then an animated PNG called APNG was brought into the Netscape browser to create the Throbber, demonstrating the possibilities. The PNG community did not accept it, some voters stated "it also abuses the PNG spec". The desire for prefection left end users without a working alternative to what they wanted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-4360322631718025952010-05-21T16:17:01.865+01:002010-05-21T16:17:01.865+01:00The real issue with the first point is that the us...The real issue with the first point is that the use of pointers is obvious if not anticipated from computer and software architectures developed in the 60's, when saving time and memory was an issue that people really cared about. If in doubt consult the Manchester University computer science group where there are stacks of detailed theses on early computer architecture. <br /> <br />The second is resolved through acquiescence/antitrust. <br /> <br />Personally I don't see the problem here.Jake the Dognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-84262833913849145822010-05-20T13:35:35.071+01:002010-05-20T13:35:35.071+01:00"Most webmasters continued to use GIFs, even ..."Most webmasters continued to use GIFs, even though they were covered by patents, rather than lose readers."<br /><br />Most of the web content creators/providers I talked to at the time were not actually afraid of losing readership, but simply couldn't be bothered to go to the effort of switching to PNG in the face of what they perceived as a very minor risk. Remember the format was designed at a time when colour rendering on screen didn't require chips to handle accelerated graphics, and bandwidth management was still of major importance. This importance, and the dependence on low spec hardware, have been eroded with the explosion in developments of hardware during the 90's and the general increase in bandwidth that followed the expansion of the internet into our daily lives. It is however, one very clear example of the active enforcement of patented software technology causing a direct development of an alternative, open and freely accessible one.athurgoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02584181504837105493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-56017286427627265742010-05-19T14:17:29.957+01:002010-05-19T14:17:29.957+01:00Hi Gentoo,
Since we're being snarky, have you ...Hi Gentoo,<br />Since we're being snarky, have you been inside a large corporate recently?<br /><br />Of course, you are right: this article has, shall we say, had time to mature since it was written. As of today (19 May 2010) there is no technical reason for anyone to use a browser that does not support PNG. <br /><br />Personally, I've never owned a mchine that would run any version of IE out-of-the box, so that's never been a problem for me...except...a lot of people spend most of their browser-facing time in front of a desktop machine running some ancient version of Windows, and over which they have no control. I work with some folks in a corporate right now who aren't even using the most up-to-date version of IE 6. The browser war might as well not have happened for them.<br /><br />Since you mention IE7, it came out in 2006. PNG was approved as a standard ten years before that. How did the browser market share look during that 10 year period?keithbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14314542307822401015noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-26881624328424227842010-05-18T11:27:30.101+01:002010-05-18T11:27:30.101+01:00"However, PNG is still not fully established,..."However, PNG is still not fully established, largely due to the initial unwillingness of the leading browser vendors to invest in supporting it"<br /><br />Did you mean: "Microsoft", singular? More specifically did you mean versions of IE prior to IE7?<br /><br />Did you hear about "browser wars?" I understand it attracted a little legal activity at the time.<br /><br />Have you noticed current browser market shares?<br /><br />http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10095730.stm<br /><br />http://marketshare.hitslink.com/browser-market-share.aspx?qprid=0<br /><br /><br />And PNG support?<br /><br />http://www.statowl.com/web_standards_png_alpha_support.phpGentoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05063939954837162413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-81046578360851770512010-05-18T08:21:05.811+01:002010-05-18T08:21:05.811+01:00are you referring to this?
(WO/2007/019316) ZERO-...are you referring to this?<br /><br />(WO/2007/019316) ZERO-COPY NETWORK I/O FOR VIRTUAL HOSTSSeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03250594804883966491noreply@blogger.com