Should we make them choose their own fonts?

[Member hra…]

It's been flying for a while, but it's not copyright, it's Design Patent. Adobe has been making it fly for them for a while, but as with any other type of patent it's open to abuse, since the US government: doesn't want to keep businesses waiting while it tries to figure out whether the patent is valid - they just leave it for lawyer armies to bicker over it eventually; and doesn't mind collecting the patent submissions fees.

This is what happens when you don't have proper copyright protection.

hhp

[Member cha…]

Having seen patent design misapplied in an unrelated field, I'd say be careful what you wish for.

The patents tend to be granted without much proof. In the case I'm thinking of, someone got a design patent on something I and others had both built & used years earlier. I didn't care, it's my hobby only, but the patentee got one major company to pay him off before other major companies made it go away.

To put everything in terms of cliches, (1) God fights on the side of the most lawyers, and (2) (in terms of the major company who paid off) if you want to get their the firstest with the mostest, pay the blackmail & get a head start. Business ain't about what's right.

As for Adobe-- let's see, trying to remember, who was suing who over all those fonts? & Wasn't there a Windows/Apple lawsuit over user interfaces? & couldn't Xerox have sued Apple?

As for the future -- if design patents are awarded to typefaces, expect the Monotype Conglomerate to grab all they can, then get injunctions against all the small guys, whether the cases have merit or not. Monotype(conglomerate) seems to be staking out their turf, and they have money for lawyers & lobbying...

[Member hra…]

Any honest person (like everybody I personally know at Adobe) probably didn't "wish for" the application of Design Patents to type. But when a society is too stupid to enact copyright for type designs, it's only human to make it pay for that.

hhp

[Member cha…]

But when a society is too stupid to enact copyright for type designs, it's only human to make it pay for that.

I'm not the historian many on typophile are, but in reading over the many "is this a rip-off or not" threads, it seems to me the society was smart to make protection a matter of programming, not drawing.

Among the many (perhaps all?) examples, I'd offer Smeijer's Reynard as an interesting case. He calls it a revival, a "true Flemish Garamond."

"Flemish Garamond" is itself an interesting notion.

[Member hra…]

I don't see how the existence of discussions/arguments about the nature of inspiration/plagiarism invalidate the wisdom of proper copyright protection for something essentially similar to many other types of works that do enjoy copyright protection (and notably also feature discourse concerning inspiration/plagiarism).

hhp

[Member alu…]

I think it's a a bit of an assumption that bundled Operating System fonts directly take away from sales potential of other fonts.

It makes sense only if one assumes every purchaser of an operating system has a vested interest in purchasing commercial fonts.

The assumption has a bit more validity with Adobe products...products targeted specifically at a consumer that *is* more likely to have an interest in purchasing commercial fonts--but those types of users *do* just that...meaning they likely have a need to purchase fonts whether or not Myriad is bundled with PhotoShop or not.

[Member gab…]

Back to the original post many years ago... How many people, out of everybody that bought a computer in 2012, do you think would want to choose 50 fonts instead of just getting a standard bundle? How many would even be able to name more than 10 fonts without looking at a list?

[Member hra…]

I actually think people are much more aware of fonts now than back in 2004.
https://typography.guru/forums/topic/111246-forwarding
Many now would love to spend a few minutes customizing their ride.

hhp

[Member old…]

The last time I bought an HP computer (about six years ago), it came with several of my—and Ray Larabie’s—freeware fonts pre-installed. Go figure…

[Member Tho…]

Hrant wrote: “Any honest person (like everybody I personally know at Adobe) probably didn't "wish for" the application of Design Patents to type.”

Hrant, you make this sound like a new thing. But US design patent #1, back in 1842, was for a typeface by George Bruce. http://www.google.com/patents?vid=D1 So it is hardly an Adobe innovation. Are you saying Adobe was the first to resume this practice in the digital age? That may very well be.

Aluminum wrote: "I think it's a a bit of an assumption that bundled Operating System fonts directly take away from sales potential of other fonts."

Which is true, but it seems that at least the fonts that are bundled are sure to sell less.

"It makes sense only if one assumes every purchaser of an operating system has a vested interest in purchasing commercial fonts."

That is clearly not logically true. It makes sense if you assume that SOME purchasers of OSes would be interested in purchasing fonts if hardly any were bundled, and that SOME portion of their demand for fonts will be sated by bundled fonts.

Even when I was at Adobe, I don't think I ever disputed Nick Shinn's arguments that bundled fonts reduced the sales of other fonts. Of course they do. It's only a question of how much, and whether it's perceived as "good" (value for end users) or "bad" (reduced sales for folks who are not the lucky ones whose fonts got bundled).

Regarding bundling of fonts vs whether "average users" would pay for fonts, there was a brief period in the early 90s when computers were taking off, few fonts were bundled, and quality fonts were sold in high volumes to average users, but in heavily discounted bundles (not so much with apps, except Corel's, mostly just fonts).

Then once large numbers of fonts were bundled with OSes and apps, and the cheap bundles had sold lots, the retail market for full-price fonts collapsed in a hurry, around 1994 or so. The big corporate version of the type industry has never been the same since.

Charles E wrote: "As I understand it, in the United States at least, a type face *design* cannot be copyright protected."

Quadibloc replied: "That *was* true, but now there is some limited protection for font designs in the U.S."

Perhaps Quadibloc is under some misconception that design patent for fonts is the same as copyright, and that this is new? But as mentioned above, it is 170 years old. I know of no new, limited protections for font designs in the abstract (as opposed to their instantiations as specific computer font files).

US design patent has a very brief term, and only exists after an expensive registration process. That's why pretty much nobody besides Adobe uses this approach.

[Member hra…]

Thomas, I do remember reading about that first patent in Lawson's Anatomy; IIRC it was for a Clarendon. I didn't mean that Adobe pioneered the idea, although I think they might in fact have been the first (and still only?) to get a Design Patent for a digital font.

US design patent has a very brief term

How long is it for?

hhp

[Member qua…]

Patents last for around 20 years, as opposed to around 100 years for copyrights.

I'm aware of the old design patents for typefaces - ATF had several that I've looked up online - but I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that the U.S. had recently amended its copyright laws to include font designs, but under some new category so that they didn't get the same treatment as literary works. I perhaps misread a reference to design patents.

[Member hra…]

With time nicely converting plagiarism to flattery. :-)

hhp

[Member Azi…]

We don't need to pay to use your software + fonts!
http://www.wordandnumberpuzzles.com/faq.html
Applicable to fonts too?!

[Member Tho…]

"I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that the U.S. had recently amended its copyright laws to include font designs, but under some new category so that they didn't get the same treatment as literary works."

Nope. The abstract design (typeface) is not protected by copyright in the USA. However, the implementation of that design as a font file is protected like software.

Status quo in the USA: The copyright office accepts registrations of the font file code, and the Adobe v SSi case upheld the principle in federal district court. But that's not new: registration of fonts dates back about 20 years, and the court ruling was 15 years ago.