RSS/Atom feed Twitter
Site is read-only, email is disabled
  1. Chat
  2. Useful links
  3. Polls

Featured content

anti-swpat campaigner seeks pantone p atent details

This discussion is connected to the gimp-developer-list.gnome.org mailing list which is provided by the GIMP developers and not related to gimpusers.com.

This is a read-only list on gimpusers.com so this discussion thread is read-only, too.

3 of 3 messages available
Toggle history

Please log in to manage your subscriptions.
anti-swpat campaigner seeks pantone patent details Ciaran O'Riordan 29 Aug 01:39
  anti-swpat campaigner seeks pantone patent details Alastair M. Robinson 29 Aug 02:25
anti-swpat campaigner seeks pantone p atent details Michael Schumacher 29 Aug 10:29
Ciaran O'Riordan
2005-08-29 01:39:47 UTC (about 20 years ago)

anti-swpat campaigner seeks pantone patent details

Hi all,

I'm working for FSFE on preventing software patentability in the EU.

The lack of Pantone support in GIMP is a useful example of how software users are harmed by software patents, but to make this claim I need to be able to point out which patents cause this problem.

Can someone tell me the patent number(s) (USA and/or EU and/or any other) that prevent GIMP from implementing pantone? I've done web searches, including searching the archives of this list, but haven't found anything solid.

If no-one minds, I'll submit the information here too: http://www.gnu.org/patent-examp/patent-examples.html#GIMP

I've searched for patents about Pantone, but there are many and it's not clear which ones cover what.

Any other solid info about patent problems in GIMP would also be appreciated. On- or off-list.

Thanks.

Alastair M. Robinson
2005-08-29 02:25:03 UTC (about 20 years ago)

anti-swpat campaigner seeks pantone patent details

Hi,

Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:

The lack of Pantone support in GIMP is a useful example of how software users are harmed by software patents, but to make this claim I need to be able to point out which patents cause this problem.

Is that really a patent issue? Pantone support need be nothing more complicated than a name -> colour lookup table. (That's how InDesign implements it - an EPS file defining a shedload of CMYKCustomColors).

I would have thought that the issue with Pantone colours would be Trademark and/or Copyright.

If no-one minds, I'll submit the information here too: http://www.gnu.org/patent-examp/patent-examples.html#GIMP

Any other solid info about patent problems in GIMP would also be appreciated. On- or off-list.

Probably best to keep this off-list; Free Software developers are better off keeping themselves entirely ignorant of patent issues, because the penalties for knowingly infringing a patent are generally much harsher than for doing so accidentally.

Publishing any examples you may find could, unfortunately, backfire for the same reason.

All the best, --
Alastair M. Robinson

Michael Schumacher
2005-08-29 10:29:59 UTC (about 20 years ago)

anti-swpat campaigner seeks pantone p atent details

Von: "Alastair M. Robinson"

Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:

The lack of Pantone support in GIMP is a useful example of how software users are harmed by software patents, but to make this claim I need to be able to point out which patents cause this problem.

Is that really a patent issue? Pantone support need be nothing more complicated than a name -> colour lookup table. (That's how InDesign implements it - an EPS file defining a shedload of CMYKCustomColors).

I would have thought that the issue with Pantone colours would be Trademark and/or Copyright.

Pantone owns the copyright of the "Pantone*" terms and the color names. Googling for "pantone copyright" truns up at least one case where this was used to get a pantone palette off the web.

If no-one minds, I'll submit the information here too: http://www.gnu.org/patent-examp/patent-examples.html#GIMP

Does anyone update this site? Right now, it reads like the LZW patent is still being claimed. I thought this went away last year?

Publishing any examples you may find could, unfortunately, backfire for the same reason.

Especially if the page is not kept up-to-date - we don't need another source to spread FUD, the holders of trivial patents can dothis on their own.

HTH, Michael