[TETENAL]

Microsoft tried to trademark their new Vista user interface font Segoe. Linotype protested against this because they claim the font is similar to their Frutiger Next font. According to this heise.de article (German) the European Office for Harmonization found the fonts to be "completely identical" and "without any difference". Since Frutiger Next is clearly the older design, Microsoft was not allowed to trademark Segoe. Microsoft has now two months time to appeal this decision.

[davesimondotcom]

Man that lowercase "g" is fugly.

[Mastrap]

Originally Posted by TETENAL

the European Office for Harmonization

That sounds just a little bit 1984 to me.

"You vill be harmonized. Resistance is futile."

[TETENAL]

Here is some info in English:

http://www.portlandtype.com/news/?p=59

And here is the original of the trademark invalidity decision:

http://oami.eu.int/PDF/design/invald...ion%20(EN).pdf

[greenamp]

[xi_hyperon]

So their typography group, who "knows their stuff," spent two years developing... Frutiger. Excellent!

[andi*pandi]

frutiger for the win.

and what the heck is cleartype??? We're only just getting used to opentype here.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

what the heck is cleartype???

It's an anti-aliasing technology that makes fonts look smoother on LCDs...

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

It's an anti-aliasing technology that makes fonts look smoother on LCDs...

...which uses something called subpixel rendering that Steve Wozniak came up with in 1977 for Apple II high-resolution graphics being displayed on a television set.

Read about it here.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Person Man

...which uses something called subpixel rendering that Steve Wozniak came up with in 1977 for Apple II high-resolution graphics being displayed on a television set.

Read about it here.

All hail the Woz.

[11011001]

I agree, that is one ugly g.

[Cody Dawg]

I want it.

Where can I get it?

I'll admit it...I'm a font whore.

(Which is better than a whore font.)

[Chuckit]

Google might know.

[Cody Dawg]

All Six TrueType fonts included in Vista, packaged together. Calibri, Cambria, Candara, Consolas (monotype), Constantina, Corbel.

People really like them.

[Judge_Fire]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

People really like them.

Calibri is nice, better than Lucida Grande or Tahoma, IMHO.

J

[Tomchu]

Originally Posted by Person Man

...which uses something called subpixel rendering that Steve Wozniak came up with in 1977 for Apple II high-resolution graphics being displayed on a television set.

Read about it here.

There's the use of sub-pixel components to simulate a higher resolution (which Wozniak invented), and then there's the automatic sub-pixel hinting and rendering of text. Both use sub-pixel componens in a creative way, but you can't credit Wozniak with sub-pixel hinting of fonts no more than you can credit him with using pixels to create graphics/text.

Now, if he had designed the ClearType algorithms, then I suppose you could credit him with this.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

There's the use of sub-pixel components to simulate a higher resolution (which Wozniak invented), and then there's the automatic sub-pixel hinting and rendering of text.

Semantics.

The whole point of ClearType is to simulate a higher resolution display (which is what Steve Wozniak did).

[Tomchu]

Did Wozniak invent and use the algorithms to anaylze glyphs and automatically hint them using sub-pixel colours? Nope. That's what ClearType is. The use of sub-pixel components is a means to an end, not the end itself.

And if you actually consider it in further detail, ClearType computes the type and intensity of the colour to use in order to make black appear smooth black, or blue smooth blue. It's not just using adjacent sub-pixels in order to smooth the stairway effect. There has been lots of research done into sub-pixel hinting of glyphs. There's more to it than just turning on sub-pixels and going "sweet, now I have double/triple the resolution!".

[Cody Dawg]

No one is smart enough to find a download for Segoe?



Not even me - I admit it.

[Chuckit]

I posted a Google search, the first result of which is the appropriate page of Linotype's site.

[Tomchu]

"Segoe.ttf" turns up nothing worthy on Google. The Vista C-fonts (Calibri, Consolas, etc.) are an easy find, but this one eludes me as well.

[Chuckit]

The Segoe files are seguibk.ttf and seguibd.ttf, and a search for "vista segoe download" turns them up in the second result.

[Cody Dawg]

Chuckit: That German site doesn't have those files.

But I DID get the Segoe file...and it rocks.





Thanks for a great thread TETENAL!

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

Did Wozniak invent and use the algorithms to anaylze glyphs and automatically hint them using sub-pixel colours? Nope.

That's true, and neither did Microsoft.

Did you even read the whole page I linked to? It's not saying Wozniak invented all of it.

Microsoft was acting like they were the first to come up with those techniques when they introduced ClearType, just like they always do when introducing some piece of technology new to Windows that's been done earlier by someone else.

But, if you don't believe me, here it is from the page I linked to.

Originally Posted by Steve Gibson

Given the array of players who have occupied and explored this territory through the years, it would be difficult to say who was here first. Sure, if we needed to reconstruct history we certainly could. But enough has already been learned, revealed and documented for any doubt to be quenched that this sub-pixel font rendering technology was long ago established and is based upon technology that's soundly located in the public's hands.

...

Thus, Microsoft's 'ClearType' application of sub-pixel text rendering does not represent the dramatic breakthrough that they claim and it can not be the valid subject for intellectual property acquisition.

It began with Steve Wozniak (among others), and progressed through several stages and several other people before Microsoft came out with "revolutionary new ClearType."

[Tomchu]

It's new to Windows, and they have every right to be as excited about it, and promite it, as if they had invented it. It's not like Apple is particularily humble about re-implemented technologies like, ohh, let's say Spotlight?

And actually, what operating system had sub-pixel hinting in it before XP? I'm curious.

PS: You basically admitted that Wozniak didn't invent sub-pixel font hinting this time around, so thanks. Earlier you made it sound like you were crediting it all to him.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

It's new to Windows, and they have every right to be as excited about it, and promite it, as if they had invented it. It's not like Apple is particularily humble about re-implemented technologies like, ohh, let's say Spotlight?

And actually, what operating system had sub-pixel hinting in it before XP? I'm curious.

PS: You basically admitted that Wozniak didn't invent sub-pixel font hinting this time around, so thanks. Earlier you made it sound like you were crediting it all to him.

Originally Posted by Person Man

...which uses something called subpixel rendering that Steve Wozniak came up with in 1977 for Apple II high-resolution graphics being displayed on a television set.

That is my original quote. I didn't say he invented FONT hinting. Do you see the word font in that sentence? I NEVER SAID WOZNIAK INVENTED SUB-PIXEL ***F O N T*** HINTING!!!

Microsoft should have said it was "new to Windows." But they were making it sound like they invented all the techniques they used.

[cpt kangarooski]

FYI, this does not appear to be a trademark case. This isn't surprising, since novelty isn't a requirement for a trademark. If it were, Apple would be out of luck.

This is a patent case. It appears that MS was trying to get a design patent for their typefaces, and failed for lack of novelty.

I can't speak for Europe (which is really ****ed up anyway), but in the US, typefaces cannot be copyrighted, but may be eligible for a design patent. A software font is arguably copyrightable (though there's not a lot of caselaw or other authority). And the name, but not the appearance, is trademarkable. The lack of copyrights and trademarks for the letterforms themselves is due to the utility doctrines in both fields; you can't copyright or trademark pictoral art (such as the shape of a letter) where that art is functional (e.g. it denotes a letter 'A') and the functionality isn't seperable from the nonfunctional elements.

[OreoCookie]

@captain
Just some clarification: there are two ways Microsoft can (and apparently did) opt for protection. 1) as a piece of software and 2) as a `piece of art' (probably the closest equivalent to a design patent?).

Here, MS didn't even bother applying for option 2 (which is the usual way in Europe to protect fonts), since they knew they probably would not get the protection by copyright anyway. So they tried to declare the font as a `piece of software'. That was the novelty in the case and the reason why Linotype's objection were not as likely to succeed.

Microsoft did not want to supply the original font design files to the EU body and they were not able to check whether or not the font is a simple `1-to-1 copy of the files'. However, if MS had merely scanned Frutiger Next and `copied by hand', they would be able to legally use the font. Again, MS hasn't supplied the files and all the EU Commission for Harmonization could go on were `print-outs' of the font.

Bottom line is: Microsoft will be able to use the font, but it won't be able to protect it by copyright … since they (according to experts of typography and the EU Commission of Harmonization) copied from Frutiger Next in the first place. So it seems that EU and US law are quite similar.

[Cody Dawg]

I got the font directly from Microsoft from a relative, actually, and a couple of others that they are using.

I really love it.

If anyone wants it PM me.

[Cody Dawg]

Oh, and the font IS copyrighted - 1997 - by Agfa Monotype Corporation.

Microsoft bought it to use.

[OreoCookie]

There was some more news in the press. Linotype and MS were negotiating about a licence agreement. Linotype wanted 1 cent per copy of Vista sold (to be fair, I'm not sure if it was 1 € cent or 1 $ cent). That was apparently asking for too much.

Again, MS can use this font in Europe. Even if they did copy the font `manually'. It's just that they cannot register it.

[davesimondotcom]

Cody -

I, too, am a type whore, but I don't think I care to have that one until Vista comes out and I can use it in web design. (That's the only time I really use TT anyway.)

Besides, I have Frutiger. And the "g" isn't ugly. The Segoe one curves up too much on the decender, where the Frutiger one stays fairly straight (and consistent with the rest of the curves of the design.)

[Tomchu]

Originally Posted by Person Man

That is my original quote. I didn't say he invented FONT hinting. Do you see the word font in that sentence? I NEVER SAID WOZNIAK INVENTED SUB-PIXEL ***F O N T*** HINTING!!!

Originally Posted by Tomchu

... you made it sound ...

You were undermining Microsoft's efforts, and making it sound like Wozniak was to be credited with the entire invention.

[harrisjamieh]

This is the point where we are told Vista will now ship in March of next year as they try take another font and pass it off as their own....

[Cody Dawg]

No, it's shipping. Microsoft wanted to own Segoe and something went on with trying to tweak it a bit.

Anyway, Microsoft does deserve credit where credit is due, like Tomchu says. I'm serious.

Microsoft revolutionized the entire computer industry. Yes, Apple may have started on that path, but *whatever* it was that Microsoft succeeded at has put this country at the forefront of the industry and Microsoft is here in the United States and not down in China or Korea or someplace else.

Besides, Jobs has lifted a LOT of things from other people - I know that some of you can start naming names - including Xerox and Sherlock and some other things.

Both companies, Microsoft and Apple, are guilty of that if you want to play that card.



Anyway, just to let some of you know? Word is that Gates and Jobs have been privately socializing so I wouldn't adopt that stance that Microsoft and Apple collectively despise each other. They don't.

[olePigeon]

I hope Agfa sues them and gets an injunction against Microsoft, forcing them to dealy the sale of Vista until the font is replaced.

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Anyway, Microsoft does deserve credit where credit is due, like Tomchu says. I'm serious.

That's not what I meant at all. Please stop trying to infer things that aren't there.

When they introduced ClearType, Microsoft acted like they invented every aspect of the technology. They did not.

All I'm trying to do is to get people to recognize that they weren't the first to use some of those aspects. To just say that Microsoft invented it is to deny Wozniak and all those that came after him and before ClearType that their contributions had nothing to do with Microsoft's success. That's all.

I'm not trying to deny Microsoft ANYTHING.

Now, please, let's let the matter drop.

EDIT: Toned down my childish outburst.

[Tomchu]

... And the way you made it sound was that Wozniak deserved credit for ClearType, and Microsoft none.

Just as bad, eh?

[Person Man]

Originally Posted by Tomchu

... And the way you made it sound was that Wozniak deserved credit for ClearType, and Microsoft none.

Just as bad, eh?

Once again, I did NOT say he invented ClearType. I simply said he was one of the first to use subpixel rendering, which is a small part of the whole that ClearType is.

Someone asked what ClearType was, and someone else said it was an antialiasing technique used to make fonts appear more clearly on LCD displays. And I added that ClearType uses a technique pioneered by Steve Wozniak, subpixel rendering. I meant it as a "cool aside." Ties back to Apple. How you and Cody have misunderstood it to mean that I said (or even implied) that Woz invented subpixel font hinting (which is WAY beyond his techniques, but it uses them as a building block) is beyond me.

[cpt kangarooski]

OreoCookie--

Just some clarification: there are two ways Microsoft can (and apparently did) opt for protection. 1) as a piece of software and 2) as a `piece of art' (probably the closest equivalent to a design patent?).

Here, MS didn't even bother applying for option 2 (which is the usual way in Europe to protect fonts), since they knew they probably would not get the protection by copyright anyway. So they tried to declare the font as a `piece of software'. That was the novelty in the case and the reason why Linotype's objection were not as likely to succeed.

Microsoft did not want to supply the original font design files to the EU body and they were not able to check whether or not the font is a simple `1-to-1 copy of the files'. However, if MS had merely scanned Frutiger Next and `copied by hand', they would be able to legally use the font. Again, MS hasn't supplied the files and all the EU Commission for Harmonization could go on were `print-outs' of the font.

Bottom line is: Microsoft will be able to use the font, but it won't be able to protect it by copyright … since they (according to experts of typography and the EU Commission of Harmonization) copied from Frutiger Next in the first place. So it seems that EU and US law are quite similar.

Oh God no. I don't even know where to start with this.

First, there is a difference between a typeface, a software font, and a name.

A typeface is how the letters look and are shaped. A software font is a computer program that outputs a typeface. And a name is simply a name.

In the US, you can never copyright a typeface. You can never copyright a name. But you can arguably copyright a font. This means that it is not copyright infringement to copy someone's typeface, or to use the same name, but it could be infringement if you simply copy the font files. To avoid this, you could carefully analyze the typeface and make your own font that produced an identical output. The 'piece of art' idea you're talking about is a copyright on a typeface. It's not possible here.

In the US, you may be able to get a design patent for a typeface. You cannot get one for a font or for a name. However, the typeface will have to be novel, i.e. it cannot be something that already exists. If you have a design patent on a typeface, no one else can recreate that typeface, or simply copy it. This lets you not have to worry about legal clones of your typeface. However, design patents don't last that long, all things considered, and are hard to get, and centuries-old typefaces are still widely popular. So it's not all that useful, a lot of the time.

And in the US, you may be able to get a trademark on the name of a typeface, but you cannot get one for the typeface itself, or for fonts that produce the typeface. This means that someone could have exactly the same typeface, and their own version of a font that outputs it, but they have to call it something other than what you call it. See Helvetica, Arial, and Geneva for how this tends to work out.

Note that novelty is never, ever, ever relevant in copyright or trademark. It is only a patent issue. And the idea of copyrighting a font independently of a typeface -- they're two different things, remember -- is hardly novel. It's standard practice in the US, since you can't copyright a typeface to begin with.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by cpt kangarooski

In the US, you can never copyright a typeface. You can never copyright a name. But you can arguably copyright a font. This means that it is not copyright infringement to copy someone's typeface, or to use the same name, but it could be infringement if you simply copy the font files. To avoid this, you could carefully analyze the typeface and make your own font that produced an identical output. The 'piece of art' idea you're talking about is a copyright on a typeface. It's not possible here.

That seems to be exactly the case in Europe as well. Sorry if I'm not that versed in legalese, but the explanations make it sound like the same rules apply. MS would be off the hook if they could prove that they haven't merely copied the files (but they wouldn't provide them)! Note that MS is not in any sort of trouble for creating that typeface or using it. If MS has re-engineered the font, they are perfectly legally ok.

The term `piece of art' was a very, very loose translation of myself from a very different term. You shouldn't take it at face value.

Remember the MS' move to copyright a font as software was very unusual, because fonts have usually been copyrighted the way you describe above.

[qnxde]

ClearType isn't the only kind of subpixel antialiasing - Apple also uses it (and it looks much better IMHO) and Adobe has their own called CoolType which Acrobat reader can use.

[cpt kangarooski]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

MS would be off the hook if they could prove that they haven't merely copied the files (but they wouldn't provide them)! Note that MS is not in any sort of trouble for creating that typeface or using it. If MS has re-engineered the font, they are perfectly legally ok.

Look, there are two different concepts here. For something to be novel means that it has never existed before. Originality, OTOH, means that it was not copied from someplace else, regardless of whether or not it is novel.

So for example, if I make a widget by copying a preexisting widget, then mine lacks originality and novelty. If I make a widget all on my own, without being aware that they already exist, then mine is original, but lacks novelty. And if I make one all on my own and they do not already exist, then it has originality and novelty.

In copyright, we only care about originality. If you make your own version of Star Wars that is absolutely indistinguishable from the version Lucas made, and you didn't copy anything from him, then you not only are not infringing on his work, but you can get a copyright on your version that is independent from his copyright on his version.

In patents, however, novelty is required. If you invent a widget, and it later turns out that some grad student invented it for a class and then shelved it twenty years ago, then you don't have novelty (even though you didn't know that) and thus cannot get a patent.

In the matter at hand, the reason that Microsoft could not get rights here was due to a lack of novelty; their typeface was basically the same as an older one. This strongly implies that they were trying to get a design patent on the typeface, but failed.

They can still get a copyright on the font (i.e. the computer program that outputs the typeface) if they didn't copy that from somewhere else. They cannot get a copyright on the typeface itself, since in the US we don't allow copyrights on typefaces, and in Europe even if they do, there probably is no originality, since MS probably copied the typeface.