RE: Re[2]: pixel fonts

Bill Hill Wrote:

>The problems of IPR for fonts are, as you point out, not much different to the 
>problems of IPR for other "creative works" on the Net, such as photographs and 
>graphics, and in fact, the font embedding scheme which we are proposing gives 
>greater protection to fonts than exists today for other creative works.

In many ways there is little difference between various forms of Intellectual 
Property, but fonts will *always* be different.

	1	Whereas many other media have protection from copying their forms
		fonts do not. Anyone can copy a type design and call it their own.
		The only things about fonts that are protected in US law is their
		trade marked name, and the data in the case of a digitised font.

		Note: the latter case is yet to be proven in a US court.

	2	Unlike photographs or illustrations fonts are tools in their own
		right, they can be used to create new works.

	3	Almost without exception fonts exist today in a resolution independent
		manner on the Net, this resolution independence can quickly be 
		translated into platform or device independence.

	4	A font is the carrier of its own source code. All information needed to
		re-engineer a font is contained within it.

		Many large companies give free software out on the net, to promote 
		other products in most cases, how many of them give out source code?

	5	For many type designers and small "foundries" fonts are their only
		end product, there is nothing for them to cross-subsidise against.

Yes vector based fonts on the Net make sense, but I'd rather spend 18 months 
discussing it and getting it right than rushing out a solution that destroys the 
IPR of many small companies and individuals.

What opportunities will be lost by taking time to sort it out properly, only the 
leverage of larger companies that can afford to subsidise type output through 
other profit centres.


-- Clive

Received on Monday, 12 August 1996 14:10:14 UTC