case study on computer graphics

Introduction to Computer Graphics

(3 reviews)

David J. Eck, Hobart and William Smith Colleges

Copyright Year: 2016

Publisher: David J. Eck

Language: English

Formats Available

Conditions of use.

Learn more about reviews.

Reviewed by Marietta Cameron, Associate Professor, University of North Carolina Asheville on 2/1/18

The author intentionally and most understandably designed this text to present material for a one semester undergraduate course. Thus the topic coverage is a subset of material typically presented in texts addressing computer graphics. I... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 3 see less

The author intentionally and most understandably designed this text to present material for a one semester undergraduate course. Thus the topic coverage is a subset of material typically presented in texts addressing computer graphics. I appreciate the implementations in Java, C, and JavaScript. Since the OpenSource 3D animation software Blender with its python interface is presented, maybe later editions of this text will include implementations in python. The hyperlinked terms and the demos embedded in the text’s online version enhance student learning. I respectfully disagree with the author’s decision to present foundational concepts with the much older OpenGL 1.1 and glut when he could do the same with OpenGL 4.5( or later) and freeglut. I also think that students would find chapter exercises helpful.

Content Accuracy rating: 4

This book's content is accurate with a few typos.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 2

As I have already mentioned, I strongly suggest the author drop all references to OpenGL 1.1 except in a section on the history of OpenGL. I agree that geometric modeling, transformations, color, lighting, textures, animation are fundamental but students (and industry) seem to ignore academics who present any ideas with what they (students and industry experts) perceive as outdated technologies.

Clarity rating: 5

The text is as clear as its "commercially available" counterparts.

Consistency rating: 4

The text is mostly consistent in terms of terminology and framework. A minor complaint is the occasional tense switch between first person singular and first person plural.

Modularity rating: 4

The text is written with an approach in mind....the topics can be rearranged with moderate effort.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 5

The organization is understandable, logical, and clear.

Interface rating: 3

It would be helpful if all figures and demos were numbered and labeled. Maybe later editions could include interactive exercises that would assess student understanding.

Grammatical Errors rating: 5

A few typos but nothing glaring.

Cultural Relevance rating: 3

This text avoids cultural references. Maybe it could offer more references to graphical software, games, animations, and special interest groups such as ACM SIGGRAPH, SIGCHI, and IGDA (International Game Developers Association).

I would include this text as a supplemental resource to for my students.

Reviewed by Jong Kwan Lee, Associate Professor, Bowling Green State University on 2/1/18

The contents of the book cover many topics in computer graphics that should be enough for an introductory level computer graphics course. However, some contents might need a little more explanation (e.g., Bezier curves) and I would like it to... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 4 see less

The contents of the book cover many topics in computer graphics that should be enough for an introductory level computer graphics course. However, some contents might need a little more explanation (e.g., Bezier curves) and I would like it to include a coverage in clipping algorithms.

Content Accuracy rating: 5

The contents of the book seem very accurate. There are a variety of computer graphics topics covered, some more in details than others, with simple examples and interactive demos and these seem to be accurate.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 4

The book primary covers the basics in computer graphics. While some contents are not the most up-to-date materials, they are very adequate for introductory level computer graphics courses. I would personally use a different platform than Java in a computer graphics course, but the contents can be adapted to others.

Clarity rating: 4

Most of the contents are clear and adequate for a computer graphics textbook. However, there are a couple of topics that I would have like it to cover more in depth so that it might be easier for students to understand the topics.

Consistency rating: 5

The author presented the contents very consistently. The same approach is used to explain various computer graphics topics.

Modularity rating: 5

The took is easily and readily divisible into smaller reading sections. For example, I would cover some subsections from different chapters with other subsections and the book contents seem to be modular to do so.

Organization/Structure/Flow rating: 4

In general, I like the organization so that the contents are introduced in a logical way. However, there were a couple of sub-topics that could be combined with other sub-topics if I were to teach a computer graphics course with the book.

Interface rating: 5

There was no interface issue I could find. Links and demos that I checked all work properly.

No grammar mistake was found.

Cultural Relevance rating: 5

I don't think this question is related to the contents of the book. But the book had no issue for the point.

The book covers both 2D and 3D computer graphics topics with examples and demos. It should be a good textbook for an introductory level computer graphics book.

Reviewed by Brian Barsky, Professor of Computer Science, University of California, Berkeley on 2/1/18

This book is a guide for how write graphics programs using OpenGL and WebGL. It does not provide a an explanation of the concepts, methods, mathematics, physics algorithms, science, psychology, etc., etc., that one would find in a standard... read more

Comprehensiveness rating: 1 see less

This book is a guide for how write graphics programs using OpenGL and WebGL. It does not provide a an explanation of the concepts, methods, mathematics, physics algorithms, science, psychology, etc., etc., that one would find in a standard graphics text book, such as the ones by Foley et al., Shirley, Hearn & Baker, etc., etc.

Relevance/Longevity rating: 5

That is fine

That is fine.

Seemed fine.

no problems (and not a relevant question)

I would like to reiterate my overarching concern that this book is a guide for how write graphics programs using OpenGL and WebGL and does not provide a an explanation of the concepts, methods, mathematics, physics algorithms, science, psychology, etc., etc., that one would find in a standard graphics text book, such as the ones by Foley et al., Shirley, Hearn & Baker, etc., etc. As such, it is reminiscent of the Open GL Programming Guide by Mason Woo, Jackie Neider, Tom Davis, and Dave Shreiner. This would be a useful adjunct to a real computer graphics text book, such as the ones by Foley et al., Hearn & Baker, or Shirley but would not provide a suitable replacement for a real computer graphics textbook like that.

Table of Contents

• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Two-Dimensional Graphics
• Chapter 3: OpenGL 1.1: Geometry
• Chapter 4: OpenGL 1.1: Light and Material
• Chapter 5: Three.js: A 3D Scene Graph API
• Chapter 6: Introduction to WebGL
• Chapter 7: 3D Graphics with WebGL
• Chapter 8: Beyond Realtime Graphics
• Appendix A: Programming Languages
• Appendix B: Blender: A 3D Modeling Program
• Appendix C: Gimp and Inkscape for 2D Graphics
• Appendix D: Source Code for Sample Programs
• Appendix E: Glossary

Ancillary Material

• David J. Eck

About the Book

Introduction to Computer Graphics is a free, on-line textbook covering the fundamentals of computer graphics and computer graphics programming. This book is meant for use as a textbook in a one-semester course that would typically be taken by undergraduate computer science majors in their third or fourth year of college.

About the Contributors

David J. Eck Ph.D. is a Professor at Department of Mathematics and Computer Science at the Hobart and William Smith Colleges.

Contribute to this Page

• WolframAlpha.com
• WolframCloud.com
• All Sites & Public Resources...

• Wolfram|One
• Mathematica
• Wolfram|Alpha Notebook Edition
• Finance Platform
• System Modeler
• Wolfram Player
• Wolfram Engine
• WolframScript
• Enterprise Private Cloud
• Application Server
• Enterprise Mathematica
• Wolfram|Alpha Appliance
• Corporate Consulting
• Technical Consulting
• Wolfram|Alpha Business Solutions
• Data Repository
• Neural Net Repository
• Function Repository
• Wolfram|Alpha Pro
• Problem Generator
• Products for Education
• Wolfram Cloud App
• Wolfram|Alpha for Mobile
• Wolfram|Alpha-Powered Apps
• Paid Project Support
• Summer Programs
• All Products & Services »
• Wolfram Language Revolutionary knowledge-based programming language. Wolfram Cloud Central infrastructure for Wolfram's cloud products & services. Wolfram Science Technology-enabling science of the computational universe. Wolfram Notebooks The preeminent environment for any technical workflows. Wolfram Engine Software engine implementing the Wolfram Language. Wolfram Natural Language Understanding System Knowledge-based broadly deployed natural language. Wolfram Data Framework Semantic framework for real-world data. Wolfram Universal Deployment System Instant deployment across cloud, desktop, mobile, and more. Wolfram Knowledgebase Curated computable knowledge powering Wolfram|Alpha.
• All Technologies »
• Aerospace & Defense
• Chemical Engineering
• Control Systems
• Electrical Engineering
• Image Processing
• Industrial Engineering
• Mechanical Engineering
• Operations Research
• Actuarial Sciences
• Bioinformatics
• Data Science
• Econometrics
• Financial Risk Management
• All Solutions for Education
• Machine Learning
• Multiparadigm Data Science
• High-Performance Computing
• Quantum Computation Framework
• Software Development
• Authoring & Publishing
• Interface Development
• Web Development
• All Solutions »
• Wolfram Language Documentation
• Fast Introduction for Programmers
• Videos & Screencasts
• Wolfram Language Introductory Book
• Webinars & Training
• Support FAQ
• Wolfram Community
• Contact Support
• All Learning & Support »
• Company Background
• Wolfram Blog
• Careers at Wolfram
• Internships
• Other Wolfram Language Jobs
• Wolfram Foundation
• Computer-Based Math
• A New Kind of Science
• Wolfram Technology for Hackathons
• Student Ambassador Program
• Wolfram for Startups
• Demonstrations Project
• Wolfram Innovator Awards
• Wolfram + Raspberry Pi
• All Company »

• Wolfram|Alpha Notebook Edition
• Mobile Apps
• Wolfram Workbench
• Volume & Site Licensing
• View all...
• For Customers
• Online Store
• Product Registration
• Product Downloads
• Service Plans Benefits
• User Portal
• Your Account
• Customer Service
• Get Started with Wolfram
• Fast Introduction for Math Students
• Public Resources
• Wolfram|Alpha
• Resource System
• Connected Devices Project
• Wolfram Data Drop
• Wolfram Science
• Computational Thinking
• Announcements
• About Wolfram
• Legal & Privacy Policy

• Top Courses
• Online Degrees
• Find your New Career
• Join for Free

What Is Computer Graphics? A Guide to Getting Started

Discover different types of computer graphics, software programs for designing them, careers —and the steps to entering this field.

What is computer graphics?

Computer graphics refers to a technology that generates images on a computer screen. It’s used in digital photography, film and television, video games, and on electronic devices and is responsible for displaying images effectively to users. Think of computer graphics as the intersection of design and computer science, with the purpose of delighting and engaging audiences. 

You can find examples of computer graphics in action all around you. Some examples include blockbuster films, such as the 2009 film Avatar , which depicts the Na’vi species using facial motion capture technologies, images and icons you see on your smartphone when you open mobile applications, and data presentations like charts and graphs you might come across in your line of work.  

Types of computer graphics

Raster graphics.

A raster graphic is essentially a 2D image composed of rows and columns of square pixels. Each pixel contains information about color and hue. When combined, pixels form a coherent image. The more pixels per inch the more high-resolution an image. A high-resolution raster graphic will appear sharper and more true-to-life than one with low resolution.   

Vector graphics 

A vector graphic is made up of shapes and lines. Mathematical formulas determine how the shapes and lines relate to each other, so that you can scale vector graphics larger or smaller in size without distorting the shape or resolution.

CGI, or computer-generated imagery, turns 2D vector graphics into 3D representations and converts them into raster images. CGI is used in TV, film, or video games to depict characters, scenes, and special effects. 

Fun fact: Did you know that the first film to use CGI was Alfred Hitchcock’s 1958 film, Vertigo ? Computer animation created the opening credits’ hypnotic swirling spiral [ 1 ].

Interactive computer graphics

Interactive computer graphics allow a user to tell a computer how to generate an image. Here’s a sampling of what you can do in interactive computer graphics: 

Add automatic zooming on an interactive scrolling interface to improve scan of a 2D information space.

Add automatic adjustments to digital sketch programs to easily record ideas in 2D using digital ink. 

Add a dragging feature to clothing animations to improve the experience of adding clothes to 3D characters.

Use motion files from a 3D animation database to generate moving characters from stick figure drawings. 

Design indoor lighting using a painting interface to control a robotic lighting system. 

Explore graphic design fundamentals including computer graphics in CalArts's Fundamentals of Graphic Design .

Non-interactive computer graphics

In contrast to interactive computer graphics, non-interactive computer graphics do not allow users to determine how images are generated. Examples of non-interactive computer graphics include images for a website or mobile application and 3D animation and CGI in film. 

Computer graphics software

Using computer graphics software can bring a world of possibilities within reach and allow you to explore your creative and technical potential. In the table below, we cover the cost and features of five software programs, as well as how users rate each program on G2, a site for discovering and reviewing software. G2 ratings for these software programs reflect users’ perceptions of the ease of use and quality of support [ 2 ]. 

Computer graphics jobs

If you’re thinking about pursuing a career in computer graphics, it’s helpful to know what kinds of jobs may be available to you. Below, we list some job titles you may come across in your research and include average total US salary figures from Glassdoor as of January 2023, and responsibilities and typical job requirements from Zippia and ZipRecruiter.

Use this list as a basis for further research and choosing the path that aligns with your long-term goals. 

Computer graphics designer

What they make: $59,518

What they do: design graphics for interactive websites; create visuals for print or digital use; use graphics software to satisfy stakeholders’ needs

Qualifications they need: knowledge of graphics software; graphic design and computer graphics skills; associate or bachelor’s degree in graphic design, computer science, or computer applications 

Digital artist

What they make: $54,344

What they do: use computer software to create digital art and design graphic images; work with illustrations, photography, and text

Qualifications they need: bachelor’s degree in visual or commercial art, graphic design, or related field; knowledge of graphics software; artistic talent

Web developer

What they make: $82,534

What they do: design and maintain websites; test out new code; test web modules; optimize user-interface designs; provide technical support to project stakeholders

Qualifications they need: bachelor’s or master’s degree in computer science, IT, or computer engineering; knowledge of JavaScript, HTML, and CSS; UX/UI skills; front-end development skills

What they make: $58,059

What they do: sketch scenes; create storyboards; animate characters, props, and scenery; collaborate with other creatives to animate films and games

Qualifications they need: skills in animation, motion capture, storyboards, motion graphics; experience using animation software; associate or bachelor’s degree in animation, graphic design, fine arts, or computer science

Game artist

What they make: $59,935

What they do: create art and visual elements for video games; use software to build characters, objects, textures, clothing, etc.; collaborate with teams and stakeholders to complete projects 

Qualifications they need: associate or bachelor’s degree in graphic design, animation, or fine arts; skills in animation and sketching; skills using Maya; UI skills

Graphic engineer

What they make: $82,204

What they do: create integrated graphics and visual effects systems for software applications; collaborate with artists and graphic designers to create motion graphics and visuals 

Qualifications they need: skills in C++ , OpenGL, Unity, and other technologies; animation skills; associate’s or bachelor’s degree in graphic design, computer science, or drafting and design

How to get started in computer graphics 

Once you’re ready to start your computer graphics journey, follow the process below to streamline your efforts. 

1. Get a computer graphics education.

Identify the career path you want to follow, projects you want to complete, and the skills, education, and qualifications you’ll need. Jobs in computer graphics often require a bachelor’s degree in design, computer science, or a related field. If you already have a degree, you may be able to build necessary skills by taking courses or getting a certification in a specific area of computer graphics. For example, to become a web designer, you’ll need to learn various programming languages and how to design user experiences and interfaces on the front end .  

Read more: Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science: A Guide

2. Experience graphics software for yourself.

As you build skills inside the courses you’re taking, you’ll want to gain exposure to different graphics software programs. That way you can apply your new skills, launch new projects, and choose the best one for you. Use the table above to guide your software research. Vet software programs according to their cost, features, ease of use, job requirements, and relevance to your goals. 

Tip: Consider signing up for free trials of different graphics software programs before making a full investment. 

3. Complete computer graphics projects.

Completing projects in computer graphics can be a great way to apply your new skills, refine your long-term goals , explore your potential, and bring ideas to life. You may find it helpful to complete projects that span different areas of computer graphics, from designing and developing websites to animating characters for film or gaming. 

Want to get inspired? Create a digital mood board in this 2-hour guided project, Enhance User Interface Design with Mood Boards in Miro . 

4. Create a portfolio of your work. 

As you complete computer graphics projects, add them to an online portfolio or website that you can use when applying for jobs, taking on contract work, or networking with others in this field. Be sure the portfolio displays the visual aspects of your work, your skills, and how your work is used. Consider sharing your portfolio on social media and resume , and even creating a profile on talent sites such as Upwork or Fiverr. 

Read more: How to Use LinkedIn: A Guide to Online Networking

5. Apply for jobs in computer graphics. 

If your long-term goal is to pursue a career in computer graphics and advance in this field, it’s a good idea to gain some experience. Look for entry-level positions, freelance and contract work, and internships. In your search for employment, examine each job description carefully to find out the projects and tasks you’ll be completing, the qualifications required, and details about the company. 

Use these resources to enhance your job search: 

11 Interviewing Skills to Benefit Your Career

30 Career-Focused Questions to Ask in an Interview

How to Negotiate Your Salary: 10 Tips to Earn More

Get job-ready skills with Coursera

Sign up for professional certificate programs from industry leaders Google and Meta to build skills like wireframing, using Adobe software tools, designing user experiences, and using programming languages.  

Article sources

Computer Animation history-CGI! “ Vertigo (1958) , https://computeranimationhistory-cgi.jimdofree.com/vertigo/.” Accessed January 6, 2023.

G2. “G2 | Compare Software and Services , https://www.g2.com/compare." Accessed January 6, 2023.

Keep reading

Coursera is the global online learning platform that offers anyone, anywhere access to online course...

This content has been made available for informational purposes only. Learners are advised to conduct additional research to ensure that courses and other credentials pursued meet their personal, professional, and financial goals.

Design Case Study: Computer Graphics Animation

Nowadays animation has a lot of various functions from highly practical to purely decorative ones. The animation we are analyzing this time is thematically decorative. This is the piece of motion graphics developed by the Tubik animation guru Kirill as a rebound on Easter and spring icons created by Arthur Avakyan.

As well as the icons, the animation piece is the product uniquely created by Tubik Studio at all the stages.

Creating a piece of animation applying specified tools with the aim of promoting the icons set.

Adobe Illustrator, Adobe After Effects

The idea of the animated shot was based on the set of Easter icons by Arthur Avakyan.

Inspired by their style, the designer for Tubik Studio Kirill decided to choose two of them as the material for a motion design sample. The work had not only decorative and entertaining but also promotional aims as it was going to become the animated versions to present the icons as the product for buyers. Somehow, it was not the usual work as the designer wanted to combine the idea with practicing the Shape tool of Adobe After Effects.

One more essential thing about Shape is that it enables the designer to create a dynamic shadow that is natural, lively, and corresponds to the movements of the objects. This can be seen in the animation presented. This time work with a dynamic shadow was much simpler due to the Shape tool. It provides designers with a higher level of functional abilities for creating more complicated and interesting motion graphic works.

Easter piece of animation was the first work fully based on After Effects Shape and this shot gave the designer a chance to feel all its advantages. Since then, Kirill has been actively applying Shape working with animation for interfaces which nowadays is included in the list of top practically useful motion graphics.

Major benefits of the Shape tool to be mentioned are the following:

• it gives more additional features than PNG
• it provides automatic processing and adjustment of changes during manipulations with an image
• it gives the significantly smaller size of the final file and that feature makes it highly attractive for work with customers while sending the files
• it creates one and the single file without tying it up to the elements as in PNG.

Processing images for motion design is always creative and full of thorough work on details and nuances. Thus, tools and features providing a motion designer with opportunities to process images faster not losing in efficiency are always highly appreciated by designers. So, they obviously have to be the subject of consideration for developers of designing software. And no doubt, that is all fair to say about the Shape tool of After Effects.

Originally written for Tubik Blog

Want to get emails about new posts?

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Milestones : Development of Computer Graphics and Visualization Techniques, 1965-1978

• 3 Street address(es) and GPS coordinates of the Milestone Plaque Sites
• 4 Details of the physical location of the plaque
• 5 How the plaque site is protected/secured
• 6 Historical significance of the work
• 7 Obstacles (technical, political, geographic) that needed to be overcome
• 8 Features that set this work apart from similar achievements
• 9.1 Overview Video: Utah's Computer Graphics Pioneers
• 9.2 Video Highlights of the 2-Day Celebration
• 9.3 Utah's CG Pioneers at the Celebration
• 10 Significant references
• 11 Supporting materials

Development of Computer Graphics and Visualization Techniques, 1965-1978

In 1965, the University of Utah established a Center of Excellence for computer graphics research with Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) funding. In 1968, two professors founded the pioneering graphics hardware company Evans & Sutherland; by 1978, fundamental rendering and visualization techniques disclosed in doctoral dissertations included the Warnock algorithm, Gouraud shading, the Catmull-Rom spline, and the Blinn-Phong reflection model. Alumni-founded companies include Atari, Silicon Graphics, Adobe, Pixar, and Netscape.

Street address(es) and GPS coordinates of the Milestone Plaque Sites

• Site 1: 50 Central Campus Dr, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 US (GPS: 40.768052, -111.846582)
• Site 2: Computer History Museum, 1401 N. Shoreline Blvd., Mountain View, CA 94043 US, (GPS: 37.414757, -122.077679)

Details of the physical location of the plaque

• Site 1: On a 3000-pound granite monument just outside the southwest entrance of the Merrill Engineering Building
• Site 2: On the inside face of the front patio brick wall, near the museum's Main Entrance

How the plaque site is protected/secured

• Site 1: Campus security; 24/7 access
• Site 2: Building security; 24/7 access

Historical significance of the work

The historical significance of the work can be summarized as follows:

• both faculty and alumni at the Univ. of Utah developed techniques that have proved to be fundamental to the maturation of computer graphics technology, with great assistance from ARPA (later DARPA) funding; ARPA funding is cited on the title pages of the PhD dissertations of at least Catmull, Fuchs, Gouraud, Phong, and Warnock
• the novel accomplishments have been recognized in numerous patents, described in doctoral dissertations and seminal papers, and awarded distinguished prizes including the IEEE John von Newman Medal (alumnus Dr. Edwin Catmull and faculty Dr. Ivan Sutherland), the ACM Turing Award (alumni Drs. Edwin Catmull and Alan Kay, and faculty Dr. Ivan Sutherland), and the Kyoto Prize (alumnus Dr. Alan Kay and faculty Dr. Ivan Sutherland)
• several important companies were formed by both faculty and alumni which helped to create new industries, including Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp. (created by faculty members Evans and Sutherland in 1968, and whose hardware was used by Utah faculty, students, and alumni), Pixar (Dr. Edwin Catmull in 1986), Adobe (Dr. John Warnock in 1982), Atari (EE Bachelors grad Nolan Bushnell in 1972), and Silicon Graphics (1982) and Netscape (1994) (both by Dr. James Clark)

Ivan Sutherland and Sketchpad

Ivan Sutherland’s 1963 ground-breaking MIT PhD dissertation Sketchpad: A Man-Machine Graphical Communication System described his geometrical design program and the world's first graphical user interface (GUI). The widespread impact of Sketchpad led to Sutherland's serving as Director of ARPA’s IPTO from 1964-66, which allowed him to direct $15 million annually to sponsor computer research projects at universities, research centers, and elsewhere across the U.S.

The Importance of Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.

David Evans and Ivan Sutherland both knew of each other, leading Sutherland to accept Evans' invitation to join the Univ. of Utah faculty in the newly-established computer science division of its Electrical Engineering Department. This quickly led to the 1968 founding on the university campus of Evans & Sutherland (“E&S”) , a very early company dedicated to the design and creation of hardware necessary to enable development of new computer graphics techniques.

E&S hardware supported the computer graphics work being developed by students and staff, and its initial place of business was on property owned by the university. Sutherland's presence also helped ensure a continued flow of ARPA funding to the university. Univ. of Utah alumni were amongst the E&S employees, including Drs. John Warnock, Edwin Catmull, and James Clark.

All of this created a first-of-its-kind environment for Utah students to be able to develop seminal rendering and visualization techniques, and these were described in their PhD dissertations (e.g., the Warnock algorithm, Gouraud shading, the Catmull-Rom spline, and the Blinn-Phong reflection model) and in their subsequent endeavors (e.g., the Catmull-Clark surface patch, and the rendering equation by James Kajiya while he was a Cal Tech professor).

ARPA Funding for the University of Utah

Chapter 4 in Wayne Carlson's History of Computer Graphics and Animation book shows how Evans was asked to establish a computer graphics program at the Univ. of Utah, and how it had received a large ARPA (later called DARPA) grant with which to work: "The University of Utah established one of the pioneer, and certainly one of the most influential computer graphics programs in the country when they asked David Evans (who joined Utah in 1965) to establish a program that could advance the state of the art in this new field in 1968. The computer science department had received a large Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) grant ($5M/year for 3 years) which resulted in the work of many faculty and graduate students who have pushed the CGI discipline to where it is today. ... Evans joined with Ivan Sutherland, who developed Sketchpad at MIT."

Univ. of California Prof. Jacob Gaboury, whose 2021 MIT Press book Image Objects: An Archaeology of Computer Graphics is cited herein, clarified two of Carlson's statements: (1) re: Evans having "joined Utah in 1965": Evans was hired by the Univ. of Utah in 1965, and joined the faculty in January 1966, and (2) re: the "$5M/year for 3 years" grant: this was actually a grant of $5 million which was provided at a rate of approx. $1.3 million/year over a 4-year period.

David Evans' Important Role

While Evans is often overshadowed by the more well-known Ivan Sutherland, Evans' importance cannot be overstated. Through Evans, the Univ. of Utah received a grant of $5M to build a Center of Excellence for computer graphics research from ARPA's Information Processing Technology Office Director Bob Taylor in 1965 (see Taylor's Computer History Museum Oral History at p. 16). Evans secured this ARPA grant "immediately following" his 1965 hiring by Utah (see Gaboury's book at p. 19). Alan Kay "wandered off to graduate school at the University of Utah, which he ended up considering 'the best luck I ever had.' The computer science pioneer David Evans was building there the best graphics program in the country" (see Isaacson's The Innovators at p. 283). Evans and Sutherland "were magnets for bright students with diverse interests, and they led us with a light touch" (see Catmull's Creativity, Inc. at p. 12).

The Importance of University of Utah Faculty in Areas Including Audio

An excellent overview of the University of Utah's impact on CG is in the Utah Computer History Project document.

Innovation at the Univ. of Utah in 1968 was not limited to computer graphics - it extended to other media as well. In 1968, Thomas G. Stockham, Jr. joined the Electrical Engineering faculty where he would also make major contributions: as PhD advisor to R. Rom and J. Kajiya, as one of six technical experts to determine the cause of the famous 18 1/2 minute gap on a crucial Watergate tape, and as an innovator in digital audio editing as recognized by his 1998 Academy Award (a Scientific and Engineering Award). The climate created by so much talent also influenced Nolan Bushnell, who was an undergraduate Electrical Engineering student and alumnus.

An exemplary example of the Univ. of Utah faculty is Prof. Richard Riesenfeld, who joined the faculty in 1972 a year before his Syracuse Univ. PhD dissertation was completed, taught there for his entire career of 47 years, and became Professor Emeritus in 2019. The 1975 PhD dissertation of Martin Newell cites Riesenfeld's 1973 paper Applications of B-spline Approximation to Geometric problems of Computer-Aided Design , and also cites papers by numerous other professors (incl. Sutherland) and fellow students and alumni (incl. Warnock, Gouraud, Phong, and Catmull). Riesenfeld continued to publish until as late as 2013 with A B-spline-like basis for the Powell-Sabin 12-split based on simplex splines . Thus, the computer graphics field was advanced dramatically by both faculty and students at the Univ. of Utah.

ACM SIGGRAPH Background on the Univ. of Utah’s Importance

The ACM SIGGRAPH Steven Anson Coons Award is the highest award in computer graphics. The description of why David Evans was the 1989 awardee ( https://www.siggraph.org/1989-steven-anson-coons-award-david-evans/ ) details the merits of this Milestone:

[David Evans’] early foray into computer graphics subsequently led to the golden era of computer graphics at the University of Utah and the founding of the Evans and Sutherland Computer Company in Salt Lake City. Dr. Evans returned home to Utah to build up the Computer Science Department of the University of Utah. There he assembled faculty including such well known individuals as Ivan Sutherland, the first recipient of the Coons Award, and Thomas G. Stockham.

Steven Coons was a visiting faculty member at Utah in 1973. William Newman, co-author with Robert Sproull of the well-known textbook, spent several years there. Newman said: “ He (Evans) had a particular style of running a department that I now think of as magical, in the sense that everything one could wish for seemed to arrive almost without asking .”

The period from 1967 through at least 1975 was an extraordinary time for computer graphics at Utah. There was a rare confluence of faculty, students, staff, facilities and resources to support vision research and hard work that produced remarkable developments in computer graphics. This research was responsible for the birth of continuous-tone computer graphics as we know it today. An amazing constellation of students passed through the University of Utah and their names are to be found throughout the publications of SIGGRAPH and other graphics journals. Among them were Jim Blinn and Jim Clark, previous Achievement Award winners, and this year’s Achievement Award Winner John Warnock. Many of his students have remarked that it was David Evans’ vision and his commitment to them that made their work possible. His guidance and advice were influential in giving them a sense of self-realization.

Beyond his abilities as an educator are his achievements in the business world. With Ivan Sutherland he founded the Evans and Sutherland Computer Corporation to produce premier computer graphics display equipment. A large part of this company’s business concerns real time simulation of scenes associated with aircraft flying and automobiles driving. These real time simulators are a partial expression of David Evans’ wish to contribute to all manner of simulation. He has been known to say that engineering design is just another form of simulation of the products to be built.

Anne Exline’s 1990 article in IEEE Potentials titled Computer Graphics succinctly addresses the topic of the historical significance of the work done at the Univ. of Utah as follows:

Ivan Sutherland and David Evans, the “godfathers” of computer graphics, gravitated to the University of Utah. (David Evans had defined the principle of incremental computing, i.e., using computations for one pixel to define adjacent pixels.) Why? Because one of the main organizations funding computer graphics research at that time was the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). And many of the advances in graphics technology occurred at the University of Utah under their sponsorship. As a result, the group of graphics pioneers that located there is still referred to as the “Utah Mafia.” In 1971, Henri Gouraud developed an algorithm to smooth out color changes between adjacent polygons, which is still used and referred to as Gouraud shading. Bui Tuong-Phong, in 1975, devised the modeling to define the plastic-looking objects which is today known as Phong shading. Ed Catmull developed the principle of texture mapping.

Dr. Alvy Ray Smith, who co-founded Pixar with Dr. Edwin Catmull, wrote the 2021 book A Biography of the Pixel , whose Fig. 7.12 (titled “Digital Movies Epoch 2: 1965-2000”) on pp. 332-333 provides an overview of important people at various universities, companies and governmental organizations who were critical to development of computer graphics technology and techniques that led to the first fully computer-animated feature-length motion pictures, including the first of these in 1995: Toy Story . This Fig. 7.12 includes members of the “Utah Mafia” at the Univ. of Utah, as they were called by Exline in her book as quoted above. Smith’s book chronicles the maturation of rendering and visualization techniques for which the university’s doctoral students played an essential role. Approximately one quarter of all the names of contributors in this Fig. 7.12 have roots in the Univ. of Utah, as shown in the flow of people from “E&S 1968” in this figure.

Utah Grads Have Had an Impact on CAD, and on Animation in Medical Applications

Distinguished Utah graduates have also produced technology enabling modern CAD products such as the popular engineering products SOLIDWORKS and AutoCAD Rivet, and animation techniques used well beyond just motion pictures such as medical applications as shown by Christopher Ray Johnson’s 1988 dissertation.

Gouraud Shading

Smith’s book describes the genesis of a fundamental “shading” technique at the Univ. of Utah in his “Shading Gets More Realistic” section on pp. 341-343 and Figs. 7.18 and 7.19. Smith discusses how in 1971 the Frenchman Henri Gouraud devised an interpolation scheme that produced continuous shading of surfaces, a method which became known as “Gouraud shading” and which remains a fundamental technique to this day. This method was set forth in the Gouraud’s ARPA-funded 1971 Univ. of Utah PhD dissertation . Gouraud shading was followed shortly thereafter by Phong shading, developed by Bui Tuong Phong in his 1974 Univ. of Utah PhD dissertation, which allowed for smoother shading techniques, but whixh required greater computational resources. Both methods are described on pp. 96-100, and in figures 3.6-3.7, of Gaboury's book.

In Isabelle Bellin’s Computer-Generated Images: Palm of Longevity for Gouraud’s Shading , the author quotes Henri Gouraud: "It must be said that the University of Utah, and in particular our department, was a real nursery of researchers in image synthesis." Bellin described one aspect of Gouraud’s work on shading: “Moreover, to explore the limits of his technique, Henri Gouraud did not hesitate to take his wife as a model! ‘What could be more complicated to reproduce than a face?’ he retorts. One evening, she agreed to serve science: he painted lines on her face in black pencil, measured the vertices of the polygons and entered everything into the computer. The images of Sylvie Gouraud's face, shaped by the computer according to the shading of her husband, have been published in many magazines and have featured prominently at the Museum of Computer Science in Boston (Mountain View today).” This famous photo (the Computer History Museum's Catalog No. 102724490) allows Gouraud’s mathematical algorithm to be visualized as a compelling work of art.

Catmull-Rom spline

A spline is a mathematical function defined piecewise by polynomials. The Catmull-Rom spline was first described in an appendix of Catmull’s 1974 Univ. of Utah doctoral dissertation, and it is illustrated and discussed in Smith’s book on pp. 239-240. Edwin Catmull and Raphael Rom received their PhDs from the Univ. of Utah in 1974 and 1975, respectively, with Catmull's receiving ARPA funding .

Blinn-Phong reflection model

This is a 1977 James Blinn modification of the Phong reflection model, which is also sometimes referred to as the "modified Phong reflection model." It is the default shading model used in the Open Graphics Library (aka OpenGL), a widely-used API for rendering 2D and 3D vector graphics. Phong and Blinn received their PhDs from the Univ. of Utah in 1973 and 1978, respectively, with Phong's receiving ARPA funding .

Warnock algorithm

This is a hidden surface determination algorithm invented by John Warnock which solves the problem of rendering a complicated image by recursive subdivision of a scene until areas are obtained that are trivial to compute. It was first described in John Warnock’s 1969 ARPA-funded Univ. of Utah PhD dissertation titled "A Hidden Surface Algorithm for Computer Generated Halftone Pictures". The history of the hidden surface problem is the subject of Chapter 1 of Gaboury’s book, and Warnock’s algorithm is described on pp. 48-49 and in Figure 1.8 therein.

Rendering equation

This is an equation which quickly became integral to computer graphics after it was introduced at the 1986 SIGGRAPH conference by both a Cornell Univ. team led by David Immel, and by Cal Tech’s James Kajiya in a paper titled The Rendering Equation . Kajiya received his Utah PhD in 1979 . See also Tomas Akenine-Moller, et al., Real-Time Rendering , 4th Edition, 2018, CRC Press, at p. 437.

Honors received by some of those discussed herein are as follows:

Dr. Ivan Sutherland:

• 1972: National Academy of Engineering: First Valdimir K. Zworykin Award
• 1973: National Academy of Engineering member for “creative contributions in computer science and computer graphics, particularly in the study of the interfaces between men and machines”
• 1975: Systems, Man and Cybernetics Society – Outstanding Accomplishment Award
• 1978: National Academy of Sciences member
• 1983: ACM SIGGRAPH Steven Anson Coons Award (first year of the award, and it has gone on to become the highest award in computer graphics) ( https://www.siggraph.org/1983-steven-anson-coons-award-ivan-e-sutherland/ )
• 1985: IEEE Computer Society Pioneer Award “for the graphics SKETCHPAD” ( https://www.computer.org/profiles/ivan-sutherland )
• 1986: IEEE Emanuel R. Piore Award “for pioneering work in the development of interactive computer graphics systems and contributions to computer science education” (with David Evans)
• 1987: Computerworld Honors Program, Leadership Award
• 1988: A.M. Turing Award: “for his pioneering and visionary contributions to computer graphics, starting with Sketchpad, and continuing after” ( https://amturing.acm.org/award_winners/sutherland_3467412.cfm )
• 1990: Sun Microsystems Laboratories Fellow
• 1993: ACM Software System Award for Sketchpad
• 1994: ACM Fellow “for his pioneering and visionary contributions to computer graphics, starting with Sketchpad, and continuing after. Sketchpad, though written twenty-five years ago, introduced many techniques still important today. These include a display file for screen”
• 1994: Electronic Frontier Foundation EFF Pioneer Award
• 1996: The Franklin Institute's Certificate of Merit
• 1996: CyberEdge Journal Virtual Reality Pioneer Award
• 1998: IEEE John von Neumann Medal “for pioneering contributions to computer graphics and microelectronic design, and leadership in the support of computer science and engineering research”
• 2004: R&D 100 Award
• 2005: Computer History Museum Fellow “for the Sketchpad computer-aided design system and for lifelong contributions to computer graphics and education”
• 2012: Kyoto Prize (Advanced Technology Category): for “pioneering achievements in the development of computer graphics and interactive interfaces”
• 2016: National Inventors Hall of Fame inductee

Dr. Edwin Catmull:

• 1974: Univ. of Utah PhD in Computer Science (research supported by ARPA)
• 1974: co-author (with Raphael Rom) of Computer Aided Geometric Design which expands on the Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computer Aided Geometric Design as held at the Univ. of Utah on March 18-21, 1974
• 1993 Academy Award co-winner: Scientific and Engineering Award “for development of ‘RenderMan’ software providing the means to digitally create scenes or elements that may be composited with other footage”
• 1995: ACM Fellow: “Dr. Edwin E. Catmull has made many and noteworthy advances in computer graphics as an individual researcher, as an inspiring leader in the field, as a director of organizations, and as a mentor for many.”
• 1996 Academy Award co-winner: Scientific and Engineering Award ”for their pioneering inventions in digital image compositing"
• 2000: became member of the National Academy of Engineering for leadership in the creation of digital imagery, leading to the introduction of fully synthetic visual effects and motion pictures
• 2001 Academy Award co-winner: Academy Award of Merit “for their significant advancements to the field of motion picture rendering as exemplified in Pixar's ‘Renderman’ "
• 2006: IEEE John von Neumann Medal “for fundamental contributions to computer graphics, and a pioneering role in the use of computer animation in motion pictures”
• 2006 Academy Award co-winner: Technical Achievement Award “for the original concept (Catmull) and the scientific and practical implementation (DeRose/Stam) of subdivision surfaces as a modeling technique in motion picture production”
• 2009 Academy Award winner: Gordon E. Sawyer Award as "an individual in the motion picture industry whose technological contributions have brought credit to the industry"
• 2013: Computer History Museum Fellow "for his pioneering work in computer graphics, animation and filmmaking"
• 2019: ACM Turing Award for his contributions to 3D computer-generated imagery

Dr. John Warnock:

• 1969: Univ. of Utah PhD in Computer Science (research supported by ARPA); his doctoral thesis incorporated what became known as the Warnock Algorithm for hidden surface determination
• 1989: ACM Software Systems Award: “For the design of PostScript page description language and its implementation.” (with Douglas K. Brotz, Charles M. Geschke, William H. Paxton, Edward A. Taft)
• 1995: Univ. of Utah Distinguished Alumnus Award
• 1996: Member of the National Academy of Engineering “for the invention and implementation of technologies for computer graphics, printing, and publishing"
• 1999: ACM Fellow “For three decades, Warnock has been respected as an innovator in the field of computer software. One of Warnock's most outstanding achievements is the development of the PostScript language”
• 2000: Edwin H. Land Medal from the Optical Society of America
• 2002: Computer History Museum Fellow for "his accomplishments in the commercialization of desktop publishing with Chuck Geschke and for innovations in scalable type, computer graphics and printing"
• 2003: Oxford University's Bodley Medal
• 2004: Lovelace Medal from the British Computer Society
• 2006: American Electronics Association's Annual Medal of Achievement Award
• 2008: IEEE Computer Society's Computer Entrepreneur Award "for inventing PostScript and PDF and helping to launch the desktop publishing revolution and change the way people engage with information and entertainment"
• 2009: National Medal of Technology and Innovation
• 2010: Marconi Prize
• Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Member of the American Philosophical Society

Dr. James Clark:

• 1974: Univ. of Utah PhD in Computer Science
• 1984: received the ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics Achievement Award
• 1996: received the Golden Plate Award of the American Academy of Achievement
• 1997: recipient of the Kilby International Award for his computer graphics vision
• 1998: elected to membership in the National Academy of Engineering for the development of computer graphics and for technical leadership in the computer industry

Obstacles (technical, political, geographic) that needed to be overcome

The key obstacle was the infancy of computer graphics technology in 1968. This Milestone shows the amazing way in which U.S. government funding in the wake of the Soviet Union’s launch of Sputnik in 1957 led to research and development in this arena at various universities and other institutions across the U.S., and this had a dramatic impact on advances in computer graphics hardware and software which made use of that hardware. Smith’s book on p. 256 describes that “the first documented computer animations appeared on Whirlwind at MIT in 1951, funded by the Air Force” and that its immediate successor Sage Computer received government funding that was “comparable in size and cost to the Manhattan or Apollo Projects.”

Smith’s book on p. 254 describes the founding of the U.S. government’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). On pp. 293-294, Smith discusses ARPA’s funding of computer graphics development starting in the early 1960s with its formation of the Information Processing Techniques Office (IPTO), and how Bob Taylor’s work there led to his founding the famous Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC). The above-referenced Fig. 7.12 in Smith’s book shows how Xerox PARC played an important role in computer graphics development. Gaboury's book also describes the ARPA funding of the Univ. of Utah program, which was awarded a $5 million grant from ARPA’s Information Processing Techniques office in 1965 for research into “man-machine graphical communication,” which was responsible for funding much of the early research at Utah.

The linkage of the Whirlwind and Sage computers and ARPA funding to Dr. Ivan Sutherland’s 1962-63 development of his famous Sketchpad geometrical design program for his 1963 PhD thesis at MIT is shown in Fig. 6.13 (titled “Early Computer Graphics: Second Stage of Epoch 1, 1950s-60s”) on pp. 250-251 of Smith’s book. Sutherland is known as “the father of computer graphics“ because of Sketchpad, as discussed on pp. 275-277 of Smith’s book, and Smith at p. 287 delineates how Sketchpad was absolutely unique: "What Sutherland accomplished with Sketchpad was the first interactively rendered computer graphics."

“Sketchpad … made it possible to create graphic images directly on a display screen by using a hand-held object such as a lightpen. It was the first program that allowed the creation of graphic images directly on a display screen rather than by entering codes and formulas into the computer through a keyboard. Sketchpad provided the foundation for what would become the Graphical User Interface, which is ubiquitous today, having brought to large numbers of discretionary uses the power and utility of the desktop computer.” (From https://lemelson.mit.edu/resources/ivan-sutherland )

In 1968, computer graphics was a very rudimentary area. As techniques and hardware matured over the subsequent decades, lifelike computer animation of three-dimensional imagery in films, games, flight simulators, and computer-aided design were all made possible by a combination of software and hardware. An early example of this maturation was the Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp. progenitor of the GPU (graphics processing unit) for its CT5 flight simulator in the 1980 timeframe, although E&S had been working on specialized hardware for computer graphics since 1969 with the release of their first Line Drawing System, the LDS-1. Chapter 5 of Gaboury's book discusses the development of the GPU concept and its origins at E&S, as well as discussion on pp. 179-181 of the first modern GPU: the 1979 proof-of-concept "Geometry Engine" designed by Utah PhD alumnus James Clark.

Sutherland served as Director of ARPA’s IPTO from 1964-66, and he ensured that the Univ. of Utah would continue to receive ARPA funding when he joined the faculty in 1968. The fact that the Univ. of Utah received significant ARPA funding with very little interference regarding how the funding was spent is discussed by Dr. Catmull on p. 10 of his Computer History Museum Oral History.

An interview with Univ. of California Prof. Jacob Gaboury about his book was recorded by the Univ. of California’s “Berkeley Book Chat” series. In this interview, Dr. Gaboury described that funding for the work by Evans and Sutherland came from the Department of Defense (DoD), but that defense interest in funding graphics eventually dried up with the passage of the Mansfield Amendment in 1972.

Smith’s book at pp. 351-378 describes how Alexander Schure provided significant personal funding for computer graphics development work done by Smith, Catmull, Jim Clark and others at the New York Institute of Technology (NYIT) from 1974-79. Smith’s book at pp. 423-425 describes how Pixar was co-founded by Smith and Catmull in 1986 based on technology spun off from George Lucas’ Lucasfilm, and how funding from Steve Jobs led to Toy Story in 1995 being the first feature-length computer-animated film.

Features that set this work apart from similar achievements

The Univ. of Utah’s incredible productivity from the time of Sutherland joining the faculty until at least the early 1990s was the subject of a Harvard Business School case study by H. Kent Bowen & Courtney Purrington: University of Utah and the Computer Graphics Revolution (March 19, 2007).

As a group, the Univ. of Utah contributed more to the field of knowledge in computer graphics than any of their contemporaries, and that fact is made most apparent both in successful business applications and in the body of awards garnered. Their most significant honors received by Univ. of Utah Computer Science alumni and faculty in 1968 are summarized here:

3 IEEE Fellows

• Charles Hansen, 2012: “for contributions to visualization tools for large-scale scientific datasets”
• Christopher Ray Johnson, 2014: “for leadership in scientific computing and scientific visualization”
• Henry Fuchs, 2015: “for contributions to computer graphics, virtual and augmented reality”

2 IEEE John von Neumann Medal recipients

• Ivan Sutherland, 1998: “for pioneering contributions to computer graphics and microelectronic design, and leadership in the support of computer science and engineering research”
• Edwin Catmull, 2006: “for fundamental contributions to computer graphics, and a pioneering role in the use of computer animation in motion pictures”

1 IEEE Jack S. Kilby Signal Processing Medal

• Thomas G. Stockham, Jr. (faculty), 1998: "for pioneering the field of digital audio processing"

1 IEEE Computer Society Sidney Fernbach Award

• Christopher Ray Johnson, 2013: “for outstanding contributions and pioneering work introducing computing, simulation, and visualization into many areas of biomedicine”

5 ACM Fellows

• Ivan Sutherland, 1994: “For his pioneering and visionary contributions to computer graphics, starting with Sketchpad, and continuing after. Sketchpad, though written twenty-five years ago, introduced many techniques still important today. These include a display file for screen.”
• Edwin Catmull, 1995: “Dr. Edwin E. Catmull has made many and noteworthy advances in computer graphics as an individual researcher, as an inspiring leader in the field, as a director of organizations, and as a mentor for many.”
• Henry Fuchs, 1995: “Dr. Henry Fuchs is internationally known for his contributions to high performance, parallel display architecture. He was a pioneer who recognized the importance of parallelism for graphic processors.”
• John Warnock, 1999: “For three decades, Warnock has been respected as an innovator in the field of computer software. One of Warnock's most outstanding achievements is the development of the PostScript language.”
• Alan Kay, 2008: “For fundamental contributions to personal computing and object-oriented programming.”

3 ACM A.M. Turing Award laureates

• Ivan Sutherland, 1988: “for his pioneering and visionary contributions to computer graphics, starting with Sketchpad, and continuing after”
• Alan Kay, 2003 “for pioneering many of the ideas at the root of contemporary object-oriented programming languages, leading the team that developed Smalltalk, and for fundamental contributions to personal computing”
• Edwin Catmull, 2019: “for fundamental contributions to 3D computer graphics, and the impact of computer-generated imagery (CGI) in filmmaking and other applications”

6 ACM SIGGRAPH Steven Anson Coons Awardees (this is the highest award in computer graphics)

• Ivan Sutherland, 1983 (first year of the award)
• David Evans, 1989
• Edwin Catmull, 1993
• James Blinn, 1999
• James Kajiya, 2011
• Henry Fuchs, 2015

2 ACM Software System Awards

• John Warnock, 1989: “For the design of PostScript page description language and its implementation.” (with Douglas K. Brotz, Charles M. Geschke, William H. Paxton, and Edward A. Taft)
• Alan Kay, 1987: "For seminal contributions to object-oriented programming languages and related programming techniques. The theories of languages and development systems known as 'Smalltalk' laid the foundation for explorations in new software methodologies, graphical user interface designs, and forms of on-line assistance to the software development process." (with Adele Goldberg and Daniel H.H. Ingalls, Jr.)

4 Computer History Museum Fellows

• Alan Kay, 1999: “for his fundamental contributions to personal computing and human-computer interface development”
• John Warnock, 2002: “for his accomplishments in the commercialization of desktop publishing with Charles Geschke and for innovations in scalable type, computer graphics and printing”
• Ivan Sutherland, 2005, “for the Sketchpad computer-aided design system and for lifelong contributions to computer graphics and education”
• Edwin Catmull, 2013, “for his pioneering work in computer graphics, animation, and filmmaking”

2 Kyoto Prize laureates

• Alan Kay, 2004 (Advanced Technology Category): for “creation of the concept of modern personal computing and outstanding contribution to its realization”
• Ivan Sutherland, 2012 (Advanced Technology Category): for “pioneering achievements in the development of computer graphics and interactive interfaces”

10 members of the National Academy of Engineering

• Ivan Sutherland (faculty), 1972: First Valdimir K. Zworykin award recipient
• Ivan Sutherland (faculty), 1973: “Creative contributions in computer science and computer graphics, particularly in the study of the interfaces between men and machines“
• John Warnock, 1996: “For the invention and implementation of technologies for computer graphics, printing, and publishing”
• Henry Fuchs, 1997: “For contributions to computer graphics hardware and algorithms“
• Edwin Catmull, 2000: “For leadership in the creation of digital imagery, leading to the introduction of fully synthetic visual effects and motion pictures”
• James Blinn, 2000: “For contributions to the technology of educational use of computer graphics and for expository articles”
• James Kajiya, 2002: “For contributions to formal and practical methods of computer image generation”
• Alan Kay. 2004: Charles Stark Draper Prize for Engineering: “For vision, conception, and development of the first practical networked personal computers”
• Martin Newell, 2007: “For contributions to computer-graphics modeling, rendering, and printing“
• David Evans (faculty, deceased)
• Thomas G. Stockham, Jr. (faculty, deceased)

1 member of the National Academy of Sciences

• Ivan Sutherland (faculty), 1978

7 Academy Awards

• Edwin Catmull, 1993 co-winner: Scientific and Engineering Award “for development of ‘RenderMan’ software providing the means to digitally create scenes or elements that may be composited with other footage”
• Edwin Catmull, 1996 co-winner: Scientific and Engineering Award ”for their pioneering inventions in digital image compositing”
• Pixar’s Toy Story , 1996 winner: Special Achievement Award “for the development and inspired application of techniques that have made possible the first feature-length computer-animated film"
• Thomas G. Stockham, Jr. (faculty), 1998 winner: Scientific and Engineering Award “for their pioneering work in the areas of waveform editing, crossfades and cut-and-paste techniques for digital audio editing” (with Robert B. Ingebretsen)
• Edwin Catmull, 2001 co-winner: Academy Award of Merit “for their significant advancements to the field of motion picture rendering as exemplified in Pixar's ‘Renderman’ “
• Edwin Catmull, 2006 co-winner: Technical Achievement Award “for the original concept (Catmull) and the scientific and practical implementation (DeRose/Stam) of subdivision surfaces as a modeling technique in motion picture production”
• Edwin Catmull, 2009 winner: Gordon E. Sawyer Award as "an individual in the motion picture industry whose technological contributions have brought credit to the industry"

1 Emmy Award

• Thomas G. Stockham, Jr. (faculty), 1988 winner: Technology & Engineering Emmy for Outstanding Achievement in Technical/Engineering Development, “For his pioneering efforts in the development of tapeless audio recording and editing technology“

1 Grammy Award

• Thomas G. Stockham, Jr. (faculty), 1994: Technical Grammy Award

1 Utah Governor's Medal for Science and Technology

• Christopher Ray Johnson, 1999

Dedication Ceremony

Dedication Video (and Program document ):

Overview Video: Utah's Computer Graphics Pioneers

6-minute Overview of Utah's Computer Graphics Pioneers (also incorporated in dedication video above):

Video Highlights of the 2-Day Celebration

Highlights of the March 23-34, 2023 Milestone Event & Kahlert School of Computing 50th Anniversary Celebration:

Utah's CG Pioneers at the Celebration

Significant references

1. PATENTS WITH UNIV. OF UTAH INVENTORS:

• John Warnock: “Electronically Generated Perspective Images” – U.S. Patent 3,602,702 (Filed 19 May 1969; Issued 31 Aug. 1971)
• Ivan Sutherland: “Vector Computing System as for Use in a Matrix Computer” – U.S. Patent 3,684,876 (Filed 26 March 1970; Issued 15 August 1972)
• David Evans, Ivan Sutherland: “Incremental Position-Indicating System” – U.S. Patent 3,732,557 (Filed 3 May 1971; Issued 8 May 1973)
• Ivan Sutherland: “System of Polygons Sorting by Dissection” – U.S. Patent 3,889,107 (Filed 27 Sept. 1973; Issued 10 June 1975)
• Charles Setz: “Computer Graphics Matrix Multiplier” – U.S. Patent 3,763,265 (Filed 21 Jan. 1972; Issued 2 Oct. 1973)
• Ivan Sutherland, Gary Hodgman: “Computer Graphics Clipping System for Polygons” – U. S. Patent 3,816,726 (Filed 16 Oct. 1972; Issued: 11 June 1974)

Note: “business method patents” (which includes software) were not generally allowed in the U.S until the 1998 “State Street Bank” court decision.

2. TECHNICAL ARTICLES, CONFERENCE PAPERS & BOOKS

• Akenine-Molle, T., Haines, E., Hoffman, N., Pesce, A., Iwanicki, M., Hillaire, S., Real-Time Rendering , 4th Edition, CRC Press, 2018.
• Blinn, J., Jim Blinn's Corner: A Trip Down the Graphics Pipeline , 1996.
• Blinn, J. and Newell, M., Texture and Reflection in Computer Generated Images , Communications of the ACM, Vol. 19, Issue 10, Oct. 1976. This is the paper discussing and illustrating the famous "Utah teapot" (aka, the "Newell teapot"). https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/360349.360353
• Bowen, K. and Purrington, C., The University of Utah and the Computer Graphics Revolution , Harvard Business School, 3/19/2007. https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=34259
• Carlson, W., History of Computer Graphics and Animation , The Ohio State Univeristy, Chapter 4. https://ohiostate.pressbooks.pub/graphicshistory/chapter/4-3-university-of-utah/
• Catmull, E. and Rom, R., Computer Aided Geometric Design , Academic Press, 1974, pp. 317-326. See description at https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780120790500/computer-aided-geometric-design
• Catmull, E., Creativity, Inc. , Random House, 2014.
• Exline, Ann, Computer Graphics , IEEE Potentials, April 1990, pp. 43-45. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/53000
• Gaboury, J., Image Objects: An Archeology of Computer Graphics , MIT Press, 2021.
• Gouraud, H., Continuous Shading of Curved Surfaces , IEEE Transactions on Computers, Vol. C-20 No. 6, pp. 87-93.
• Isaacson, W., The Innovators , Simon & Schuster, 2014.
• Kajiya, J., The Rendering Equation , SIGGRAPH Dallas Texas, Vol. 20, No. 4, 1986, pp. 143-150. http://www.cse.chalmers.se/edu/year/2011/course/TDA361/2007/rend_eq.pdf
• Newman, W. and Sproull, R., Principles of Interactive Computer Graphics , McGraw-Hill, 1979. https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/5532
• Smith, A, A Biography of the Pixel , MIT Press, 2021.

3. PhD DISSERTATIONS:

• Evans, David C., Design and Operation of Two Electronic Computing Devices, 1953 (Univ. of Utah).
• Riesenfeld, Richard, The Application of B-splines to Computer Aided Geometric Design, 1973 (Syracuse Univ.).
• Stockham, Thomas G., 1959 (MIT).
• Sutherland, Ivan, Sketchpad, A Man-Machine Graphical Communication System, 1963 (MIT).
• Blinn, James Frederick, Computer Display of Curved Surfaces, 1978. https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s6pp4whm
• Catmull, Edwin, A Subdivision Algorithm for Computer Display of Curved Surfaces, 1974. (with ARPA funding) https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s6wt23bb
• Clark, James Henry, 3-D Design of Free-Form B-Spline Surfaces, 1974. https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s63r6tc5
• Fuchs, Henry, The Automatic Sensing and Analysis of 3-d Surface Points from Visual Scenes, 1975. (with ARPA funding) https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s66h521q
• Gouraud, Henri, Computer Display of Curved Surfaces, 1971. (with ARPA funding) https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s69k4vts
• Hansen, Charles D., CAGD-Based Computer Vision: The Automatic Generation of Recognition Strategies, 1988.
• Johnson, Christopher Ray, The Generalized Inverse Problem in Electrocardiography: Theoretical, Computational and Experimental Results , 1988. https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s62n543k
• Kajiya, James Thomas, Toward A Mathematical Theory of Perception, 1979. https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s6xm45b5
• Kay, Alan Curtis, The Reactive Engine , 1969.
• Newell, Martin Edward, The Utilization of Procedure Models in Digital Image Sythesis, 1975. https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s651906h
• Parke, Frederic Ira, A Parametric Model for Human Faces, 1974.
• Phong, Bui Tuong, Illumination for Computer-Generated Images, 1973. (with ARPA funding) https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s60635q6
• Rom, Raphael, Image Transmission and Coding Based on Human Vision, 1975.
• Warnock, John Edward, A Hidden Surface Algorithm for Computer Generated Halftone Pictures, 1969. (with ARPA funding) https://collections.lib.utah.edu/ark:/87278/s6vj1cn7

4. INTERVIEWS, ORAL HISTORIES AND PRESENTATIONS

An Interview with Ivan Sutherland , Charles Babbage Institute, History of Information Processing, Univ. of Minnesota: 1 May 1989.

• Description: https://conservancy.umn.edu/handle/11299/107642
• Transcript: https://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/107642/oh171lis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
• Audio: http://purl.umn.edu/95652

Oral History of Robert (Bob) W. Taylor , Computer History Museum, 10-11 October 2008

• Transcript: http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/text/Oral_History/Taylor_Robert/102702015.05.01.acc.pdf

Museum Fellow Oral History of Edwin Catmull , Computer History Museum, 1 March 2013

• Transcript: http://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2014/05/102746614-05-01-acc.pdf
• Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imrliaThKrI

A Conversation with Edwin Catmull—President of Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios , 19 October 2017

• Subject: Edwin Catmull, Pixar’s founding father, talks about his 20 year quest to create the first computer animated film, lessons he’s learned, friendships he’s made, and his love of The Great Courses.
• Transcript: https://www.wondriumdaily.com/an-interview-with-edwin-catmull/

Jacob Gaboury Book Chat : University of California Berkeley Book Chat Series, 8 December 2021

• Subject: Gaboury’s 2021 book Image Objects: An Archaeology of Computer Graphics
• Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zke2RG3VeSQ

PIXAR Co-founder Alvy Ray Smith: The History of The Pixel : The Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA: 5 August 2021

• Subject: Smith's 2021 book A Biography of the Pixel
• Audio: https://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/archive/podcast/pixar-co-founder-alvy-ray-smith-history-pixel

Utah Graphics in the Bay Area , Silicon Valley SIGGRAPH Event at Sun Microsystems, 27 Sept. 1994.

• Speakers: Edwin Catmull, Frank Crow, John Warnock, Lance Williams
• Video: https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102639874

5. IVAN SUTHERLAND DOCUMENTS AND VIDEOS FROM THE COMPUTER HISTORY MUSEUM

• The Remarkable Ivan Sutherland: https://computerhistory.org/blog/the-remarkable-ivan-sutherland/

Ivan Sutherland Oral History:

• Transcript, Part 1: https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102738195
• Video, Part 1: https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102738196
• Transcript, Part 2: https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102706904
• Video, Part 2: https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102706903

Ivan Sutherland's Sketchpad:

• MiT PhD Thesis on Sketchpad: https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102726907
• Source Code and Memoranda: https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102726903
• Jim Blinn's Web Corner: https://www.jimblinn.com/publications/
• Computer History Museum Timeline of Computer History: Graphics & Games Gaboury’s Image Objects: An Archaeology of Computer Graphics : https://www.computerhistory.org/timeline/graphics-games/
• Computer History Museum Catalog No. 102724490, "Sylvie Gouraud as model for Gouraud shading technique, front view": https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102724490
• Utah Computer History Project: http://www.sci.utah.edu/~nathang/utah-history/utah-history-analysis.pdf

Supporting materials

• Jeffrey Yost of the Charles Babbage Institute for Computing, Information, and Culture attended the Computer Graphics Milestone dedication in Utah, and he wrote the attached story .
• How the Computer Graphics Industry Got Started at the University of Utah
• Q&A With Alvy Ray Smith, Cofounder of Pixar
• The Real Story of Pixar

Representation Discovery using Harmonic Analysis pp 99–109 Cite as

Case Study: Computer Graphics

• Sridhar Mahadevan 2  

66 Accesses

Part of the book series: Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning ((SLAIML))

Representation discovery via construction of basis functions has significant commercial potential: an appropriate choice of basis can result in a highly compressed representation of Internet content, such as images and movies. A classic application of harmonic analysis in this regard are the well-known JPEG and JPEG-2000 standards [122], widely used by millions of consumers every day in digital cameras and on the Internet. JPEG relies on the discrete cosine transform [3], a type of Fourier analysis on 2D arrays, and JPEG-2000 relies on the wavelet transform. Both these methods, however, do not generalize to 3D objects with arbitrary topology, a problem of much current interest in applications such as computer graphics and animation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution .

Buying options

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Computer Science Department, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA

Sridhar Mahadevan

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2008 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter.

Mahadevan, S. (2008). Case Study: Computer Graphics. In: Representation Discovery using Harmonic Analysis. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-01546-5_7

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-01546-5_7

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-031-00418-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-031-01546-5

eBook Packages : Synthesis Collection of Technology (R0) eBColl Synthesis Collection 2

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Trending Now
• Foundational Courses
• Data Science
• Practice Problem
• Machine Learning
• System Design
• DevOps Tutorial
• BCA 4th Semester Syllabus (2023)

Computer Graphics and Multimedia Application

Introduction to computer graphics.

• Applications of Computer Graphics
• Interactive Graphical Techniques in Computer Graphics
• Hard-Copy Devices in Computer Graphics
• Display Processor in Computer Graphics
• Raster-Scan Displays
• Random-Scan Display
• Line Clipping | Set 2 (Cyrus Beck Algorithm)
• Mid-Point Line Generation Algorithm
• Computer Graphics - 3D Translation Transformation
• Composite Transformation in 2-D graphics
• Window to Viewport Transformation in Computer Graphics with Implementation
• Computer Graphics Curve in Computer Graphics
• Polygon Mesh in Computer Graphics
• Cubic Bezier Curve Implementation in C
• Binary Space Partitioning
• What is Multimedia?
• CD-ROM Full Form
• Computer Animation

Operating System

• What is an Operating System?
• Batch Processing Operating System
• Memory Management in Operating System
• Difference between Demand Paging and Segmentation
• Page Replacement Algorithms in Operating Systems
• Allocation of frames in Operating System
• Process Schedulers in Operating System
• CPU Scheduling in Operating Systems
• Introduction of Process Synchronization
• Introduction of Deadlock in Operating System
• Functions of Operating System
• Storage Structure in Operating Systems
• Swap-Space Management in Operating system
• File Systems in Operating System
• Free space management in Operating System

Software Engineering

• Introduction to Software Engineering - Software Engineering
• Activities involved in Software Requirement Analysis
• Software Design Process - Software Engineering
• Design and Implementation in Operating System
• Software Maintenance - Software Engineering
• System configuration management - Software Engineering

Optimization techniques

• Linear Programming
• Queuing Models in Operating System
• Optimal Page Replacement Algorithm
• Job Sequencing Problem
• Johnson's Rule in Sequencing Problems

Mathematics 3

• Complex Numbers
• Mathematics | Sequence, Series and Summations
• Fourier Series Formula
• Differential Equations
• Second Order Linear Differential Equations
• BCA 1st Semester Syllabus (2023)
• BCA 2nd Semester Syllabus (2023)
• BCA 3rd Semester Syllabus (2023)
• BCA 5th Semester Syllabus (2023)
• BCA 6th Semester Subjects and Syllabus (2023)
• BCA Full Form
• Bachelor of Computer Applications: Curriculum and Career Opportunity

Graphics are defined as any sketch or a drawing or a special network that pictorially represents some meaningful information. Computer Graphics is used where a set of images needs to be manipulated or the creation of the image in the form of pixels and is drawn on the computer. Computer Graphics can be used in digital photography, film, entertainment, electronic gadgets, and all other core technologies which are required. It is a vast subject and area in the field of computer science. Computer Graphics can be used in UI design, rendering, geometric objects, animation, and many more. In most areas, computer graphics is an abbreviation of CG. There are several tools used for the implementation of Computer Graphics. The basic is the <graphics.h> header file in Turbo-C, Unity for advanced and even OpenGL can be used for its Implementation. 

The term ‘Computer Graphics’ was coined by Verne Hudson and William Fetter from Boeing who were pioneers in the field. 

Computer Graphics refers to several things:

• The manipulation and the representation of the image or the data in a graphical manner.
• Various technology is required for the creation and manipulation.
• Digital synthesis and its manipulation.

Types of Computer Graphics

• Raster Graphics: In raster, graphics pixels are used for an image to be drawn. It is also known as a bitmap image in which a sequence of images is into smaller pixels. Basically, a bitmap indicates a large number of pixels together.
• Vector Graphics: In vector graphics, mathematical formulae are used to draw different types of shapes, lines, objects, and so on.

Applications

• Computer Graphics are used for an aided design for engineering and architectural system- These are used in electrical automobiles, electro-mechanical, mechanical, electronic devices. For example gears and bolts.
• Computer Art – MS Paint.
• Presentation Graphics – It is used to summarize financial statistical scientific or economic data. For example- Bar chart, Line chart.
• Entertainment- It is used in motion pictures, music videos, television gaming.
• Education and training- It is used to understand the operations of complex systems. It is also used for specialized system such for framing for captains, pilots and so on.
• Visualization- To study trends and patterns.For example- Analyzing satellite photo of earth.

Please Login to comment...

Similar reads.

• computer-graphics
• Computer Subject
• Google Introduces New AI-powered Vids App
• Dolly Chaiwala: The Microsoft Windows 12 Brand Ambassador
• 10 Best Free Remote Desktop apps for Android in 2024
• 10 Best Free Internet Speed Test apps for Android in 2024
• 30 OOPs Interview Questions and Answers (2024)

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

• Computer Fundamentals

Computer Graphics

Computer Network

• Interview Q

Graphic Systems

Input-output devices, scan conversion a line, scan conversion circle, scan converting ellipse, filled area primitives, 2d transformations, clipping techniques, pointing & positioning, 3d computer graphics, hidden surfaces.

• Send your Feedback to [email protected]

Help Others, Please Share

Learn Latest Tutorials

Transact-SQL

Reinforcement Learning

R Programming

React Native

Python Design Patterns

Python Pillow

Python Turtle

Preparation

Verbal Ability

Interview Questions

Company Questions

Trending Technologies

Artificial Intelligence

Cloud Computing

Data Science

Machine Learning

B.Tech / MCA

Data Structures

Operating System

Compiler Design

Computer Organization

Discrete Mathematics

Ethical Hacking

Software Engineering

Web Technology

Cyber Security

C Programming

Control System

Data Mining

Data Warehouse

Global Dimensions of Intellectual Property Rights in Science and Technology (1993)

Chapter: 12 a case study on computer programs, 12 a case study on computer programs.

PAMELA SAMUELSON

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

Phase 1: the 1950s and early 1960s.

When computer programs were first being developed, proprietary rights issues were not of much concern. Software was often developed in academic or other research settings. Much progress in the programming field occurred as a result of informal exchanges of software among academics and other researchers. In the course of such exchanges, a program developed by one person might be extended or improved by a number of colleagues who would send back (or on to others) their revised versions of the software. Computer manufacturers in this period often provided software to customers of their machines to make their major product (i.e., computers) more commercially attractive (which caused the software to be characterized as "bundled" with the hardware).

To the extent that computer programs were distributed in this period by firms for whom proprietary rights in software were important, programs tended to be developed and distributed through restrictive trade secret licensing agreements. In general, these were individually negotiated with customers. The licensing tradition of the early days of the software industry has framed some of the industry expectations about proprietary rights issues, with implications for issues still being litigated today.

In the mid-1960s, as programs began to become more diverse and complex, as more firms began to invest in the development of programs, and as

some began to envision a wider market for software products, a public dialogue began to develop about what kinds of proprietary rights were or should be available for computer programs. The industry had trade secrecy and licensing protection, but some thought more legal protection might be needed.

Phase 2: Mid-1960s and 1970s

Copyright law was one existing intellectual property system into which some in the mid-1960s thought computer programs might potentially fit. Copyright had a number of potential advantages for software: it could provide a relatively long term of protection against unauthorized copying based on a minimal showing of creativity and a simple, inexpensive registration process. 1 Copyright would protect the work's ''expression," but not the "ideas" it contained. Others would be free to use the same ideas in other software, or to develop independently the same or a similar work. All that would be forbidden was the copying of expression from the first author's work.

In 1964, the U.S. Copyright Office considered whether to begin accepting registration of computer programs as copyrightable writings. It decided to do so, but only under its "rule of doubt" and then only on condition that a full text of the program be deposited with the office, which would be available for public review. 2

The Copyright Office's doubt about the copyrightability of programs

arose from a 1908 Supreme Court decision that had held that a piano roll was not an infringing "copy" of copyrighted music, but rather part of a mechanical device. 3 Mechanical devices (and processes) have traditionally been excluded from the copyright domain. 4 Although the office was aware that in machine-readable form, computer programs had a mechanical character, they also had a textual character, which was why the Copyright Office decided to accept them for registration.

The requirement that the full text of the source code of a program be deposited in order for a copyright in the program to be registered was consistent with a long-standing practice of the Copyright Office, 5 as well as with what has long been perceived to be the constitutional purpose of copyright, namely, promoting the creation and dissemination of knowledge. 6

Relatively few programs, however, were registered with the Copyright Office under this policy during the 1960s and 1970s. 7 Several factors may have contributed to this. Some firms may have been deterred by the requirement that the full text of the source code be deposited with the office and made available for public inspection, because this would have dispelled its trade secret status. Some may have thought a registration certificate issued under the rule of doubt might not be worth much. However, the main reason for the low number of copyright registrations was probably that a mass market in software still lay in the future. Copyright is useful mainly to protect mass-marketed products, and trade secrecy is quite adequate for programs with a small number of distributed copies.

Shortly after the Copyright Office issued its policy on the registrability of computer programs, the U.S. Patent Office issued a policy statement concerning its views on the patentability of computer programs. It rejected the idea that computer programs, or the intellectual processes that might be embodied in them, were patentable subject matter. 8 Only if a program was

claimed as part of a traditionally patentable industrial process (i.e., those involving the transformation of matter from one physical state to another) did the Patent Office intend to issue patents for program-related innovations. 9

Patents are typically available for inventive advances in machine designs or other technological products or processes on completion of a rigorous examination procedure conducted by a government agency, based on a detailed specification of what the claimed invention is, how it differs from the prior art, and how the invention can be made. Although patent rights are considerably shorter in duration than copyrights, patent rights are considered stronger because no one may make, use, or sell the claimed invention without the patent owner's permission during the life of the patent. (Patents give rights not just against someone who copies the protected innovation, but even against those who develop it independently.) Also, much of what copyright law would consider to be unprotectable functional content ("ideas") if described in a book can be protected by patent law.

The Patent Office's policy denying the patentability of program innovations was consistent with the recommendations of a presidential commission convened to make suggestions about how the office could more effectively cope with an "age of exploding technology." The commission also recommended that patent protection not be available for computer program innovations. 10

Although there were some appellate decisions in the late 1960s and

early 1970s overturning Patent Office rejections of computer program-related applications, few software developers looked to the patent system for protection after two U.S. Supreme Court decisions in the 1970s ruled that patent protection was not available for algorithms. 11 These decisions were generally regarded as calling into question the patentability of all software innovations, although some continued to pursue patents for their software innovations notwithstanding these decisions. 12

As the 1970s drew to a close, despite the seeming availability of copyright protection for computer programs, the software industry was still relying principally on trade secrecy and licensing agreements. Patents seemed largely, if not totally, unavailable for program innovations. Occasional suggestions were made that a new form of legal protection for computer programs should be devised, but the practice of the day was trade secrecy and licensing, and the discourse about additional protection was focused overwhelmingly on copyright.

During the 1960s and 1970s the computer science research community grew substantially in size. Although more software was being distributed under restrictive licensing agreements, much software, as well as innovative ideas about how to develop software, continued to be exchanged among researchers in this field. The results of much of this research were published and discussed openly at research conferences. Toward the end of this period, a number of important research ideas began to make their way into commercial projects, but this was not seen as an impediment to research by computer scientists because the commercial ventures tended to arise after the research had been published. Researchers during this period did not, for the most part, seek proprietary rights in their software or software ideas, although other rewards (such as tenure or recognition in the field) were available to those whose innovative research was published.

Phase 3: The 1980s

Four significant developments in the 1980s changed the landscape of the software industry and the intellectual property rights concerns of those who developed software. Two were developments in the computing field; two were legal developments.

The first significant computing development was the introduction to the market of the personal computer (PC), a machine made possible by improvements in the design of semiconductor chips, both as memory storage

devices and as processing units. A second was the visible commercial success of some early PC applications software—most notably, Visicalc, and then Lotus 1-2-3—which significantly contributed to the demand for PCs as well as making other software developers aware that fortunes could be made by selling software. With these developments, the base for a large mass market in software was finally in place.

During this period, computer manufacturers began to realize that it was to their advantage to encourage others to develop application programs that could be executed on their brand of computers. One form of encouragement involved making available to software developers whatever interface information would be necessary for development of application programs that could interact with the operating system software provided with the vendor's computers (information that might otherwise have been maintained as a trade secret). Another form of encouragement was pioneered by Apple Computer, which recognized the potential value to consumers (and ultimately to Apple) of having a relatively consistent "look and feel" to the applications programs developed to run on Apple computers. Apple developed detailed guidelines for applications developers to aid in the construction of this consistent look and feel.

The first important legal development—one which was in place when the first successful mass-marketed software applications were introduced into the market—was passage of amendments to the copyright statute in 1980 to resolve the lingering doubt about whether copyright protection was available for computer programs. 13 These amendments were adopted on the recommendation of the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (CONTU), which Congress had established to study a number of "new technology" issues affecting copyrighted works. The CONTU report emphasized the written nature of program texts, which made them seem so much like written texts that had long been protected by copyright law. The CONTU report noted the successful expansion of the boundaries of copyright over the years to take in other new technology products, such as photographs, motion pictures, and sound recordings. It predicted that computer programs could also be accommodated in the copyright regime. 14

Copyright law was perceived by CONTU as the best alternative for protection of computer programs under existing intellectual property regimes. Trade secrecy, CONTU noted, was inherently unsuited for mass-marketed products because the first sale of the product on the open market would dispel the secret. CONTU observed that Supreme Court rulings had cast

doubts on the availability of patent protection for software. CONTU's confidence in copyright protection for computer programs was also partly based on an economic study it had commissioned. This economic study regarded copyright as suitable for protecting software against unauthorized copying after sale of the first copy of it in the marketplace, while fostering the development of independently created programs. The CONTU majority expressed confidence that judges would be able to draw lines between protected expression and unprotected ideas embodied in computer programs, just as they did routinely with other kinds of copyrighted works.

A strong dissenting view was expressed by the novelist John Hersey, one of the members of the CONTU commission, who regarded programs as too mechanical to be protected by copyright law. Hersey warned that the software industry had no intention to cease the use of trade secrecy for software. Dual assertion of trade secrecy and copyright seemed to him incompatible with copyright's historical function of promoting the dissemination of knowledge.

Another development during this period was that the Copyright Office dropped its earlier requirement that the full text of source code be deposited with it. Now only the first and last 25 pages of source code had to be deposited to register a program. The office also decided it had no objection if the copyright owner blacked out some portions of the deposited source code so as not to reveal trade secrets. This new policy was said to be consistent with the new copyright statute that protected both published and unpublished works alike, in contrast to the prior statutes that had protected mainly published works. 15

With the enactment of the software copyright amendments, software developers had a legal remedy in the event that someone began to mass-market exact or near-exact copies of the developers' programs in competition with the owner of the copyright in the program. Unsurprisingly, the first software copyright cases involved exact copying of the whole or substantial portions of program code, and in them, the courts found copyright infringement. Copyright litigation in the mid- and late 1980s began to grapple with questions about what, besides program code, copyright protects about computer programs. Because the "second-generation" litigation affects the current legal framework for the protection of computer programs, the issues raised by these cases will be dealt with in the next section.

As CONTU Commissioner Hersey anticipated, software developers did not give up their claims to the valuable trade secrets embodied in their programs after enactment of the 1980 amendments to the copyright statute.

To protect those secrets, developers began distributing their products in machine-readable form, often relying on "shrink-wrap" licensing agreements to limit consumer rights in the software. 16 Serious questions exist about the enforceability of shrink-wrap licenses, some because of their dubious contractual character 17 and some because of provisions that aim to deprive consumers of rights conferred by the copyright statute. 18 That has not led, however, to their disuse.

One common trade secret-related provision of shrink-wrap licenses, as well as of many negotiated licenses, is a prohibition against decompilation or disassembly of the program code. Such provisions are relied on as the basis of software developer assertions that notwithstanding the mass distribution of a program, the program should be treated as unpublished copyrighted works as to which virtually no fair use defenses can be raised. 19

Those who seek to prevent decompilation of programs tend to assert that since decompilation involves making an unauthorized copy of the program, it constitutes an improper means of obtaining trade secrets in the program. Under this theory, decompilation of program code results in three unlawful acts: copyright infringement (because of the unauthorized copy made during the decompilation process), trade secret misappropriation (because the secret has been obtained by improper means, i.e., by copyright

infringement), and a breach of the licensing agreement (which prohibits decompilation).

Under this theory, copyright law would become the legal instrument by which trade secrecy could be maintained in a mass-marketed product, rather than a law that promotes the dissemination of knowledge. Others regard decompilation as a fair use of a mass-marketed program and, shrink-wrap restrictions to the contrary, as unenforceable. This issue has been litigated in the United States, but has not yet been resolved definitively. 20 The issue remains controversial both within the United States and abroad.

A second important legal development in the early 1980s—although one that took some time to become apparent—was a substantial shift in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) policy concerning the patentability of computer program-related inventions. This change occurred after the 1981 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Diamond v. Diehr, which ruled that a rubber curing process, one element of which was a computer program, was a patentable process. On its face, the Diehr decision seemed consistent with the 1966 Patent Office policy and seemed, therefore, not likely to lead to a significant change in patent policy regarding software innovations. 21 By the mid-1980s, however, the PTO had come to construe the Court's ruling broadly and started issuing a wide variety of computer program-related patents. Only "mathematical algorithms in the abstract" were now thought unpatentable. Word of the PTO's new receptivity to software patent applications spread within the patent bar and gradually to software developers.

During the early and mid-1980s, both the computer science field and the software industry grew very significantly. Innovative ideas in computer science and related research fields were widely published and disseminated. Software was still exchanged by researchers, but a new sensitivity to intellectual property rights began to arise, with general recognition that unauthorized copying of software might infringe copyrights, especially if done with a commercial purpose. This was not perceived as presenting a serious obstacle to research, for it was generally understood that a reimplementation of the program (writing one's own code) would be

noninfringing. 22 Also, much of the software (and ideas about software) exchanged by researchers during the early and mid-1980s occurred outside the commercial marketplace. Increasingly, the exchanges took place with the aid of government-subsidized networks of computers.

Software firms often benefited from the plentiful availability of research about software, as well as from the availability of highly trained researchers who could be recruited as employees. Software developers began investing more heavily in research and development work. Some of the results of this research was published and/or exchanged at technical conferences, but much was kept as a trade secret and incorporated in new products.

By the late 1980s, concerns began arising in the computer science and related fields, as well as in the software industry and the legal community, about the degree of intellectual property protection needed to promote a continuation of the high level of innovation in the software industry. 23 Although most software development firms, researchers, and manufacturers of computers designed to be compatible with the leading firms' machines seemed to think that copyright (complemented by trade secrecy) was adequate to their needs, the changing self-perception of several major computer manufacturers led them to push for more and "stronger" protection. (This concern has been shared by some successful software firms whose most popular programs were being "cloned" by competitors.) Having come to realize that software was where the principal money of the future would be made, these computer firms began reconceiving themselves as software developers. As they did so, their perspective on software protection issues changed as well. If they were going to invest in software development, they wanted "strong'' protection for it. They have, as a consequence, become among the most vocal advocates of strong copyright, as well as of patent protection for computer programs. 24

CURRENT LEGAL APPROACHES IN THE UNITED STATES

Software developers in the United States are currently protecting software products through one or more of the following legal protection mechanisms: copyright, trade secret, and/or patent law. Licensing agreements often supplement these forms of protection. Some software licensing agreements are negotiated with individual customers; others are printed forms found under the plastic shrink-wrap of a mass-marketed package. 25 Few developers rely on only one form of legal protection. Developers seem to differ somewhat on the mix of legal protection mechanisms they employ as well as on the degree of protection they expect from each legal device.

Although the availability of intellectual property protection has unquestionably contributed to the growth and prosperity of the U.S. software industry, some in the industry and in the research community are concerned that innovation and competition in this industry will be impeded rather than enhanced if existing intellectual property rights are construed very broadly. 26 Others, however, worry that courts may not construe intellectual property rights broadly enough to protect what is most valuable about software, and if too little protection is available, there may be insufficient incentives to invest in software development; hence innovation and competition may be retarded through underprotection. 27 Still others (mainly lawyers) are confident that the software industry will continue to prosper and grow under the existing intellectual property regimes as the courts "fill out" the details of software protection on a case-by-case basis as they have been doing for the past several years. 28

What's Not Controversial

Although the main purpose of the discussion of current approaches is to give an overview of the principal intellectual property issues about which there is controversy in the technical and legal communities, it may be wise to begin with a recognition of a number of intellectual property issues as to which there is today no significant controversy. Describing only the aspects of the legal environment as to which controversies exist would risk creating a misimpression about the satisfaction many software developers and lawyers have with some aspects of intellectual property rights they now use to protect their and their clients' products.

One uncontroversial aspect of the current legal environment is the use of copyright to protect against exact or near-exact copying of program code. Another is the use of copyright to protect certain aspects of user interfaces, such as videogame graphics, that are easily identifiable as "expressive" in a traditional copyright sense. Also relatively uncontroversial is the use of copyright protection for low-level structural details of programs, such as the instruction-by-instruction sequence of the code. 29

The use of trade secret protection for the source code of programs and other internally held documents concerning program design and the like is similarly uncontroversial. So too is the use of licensing agreements negotiated with individual customers under which trade secret software is made available to licensees when the number of licensees is relatively small and when there is a reasonable prospect of ensuring that licensees will take adequate measures to protect the secrecy of the software. Patent protection for industrial processes that have computer program elements, such as the rubber curing process in the Diehr case, is also uncontroversial.

Substantial controversies exist, however, about the application of copyright law to protect other aspects of software, about patent protection for other kinds of software innovations, about the enforceability of shrink-wrap licensing agreements, and about the manner in which the various forms of legal protection seemingly available to software developers interrelate in the protection of program elements (e.g., the extent to which copyright and trade secret protection can coexist in mass-marketed software).

Controversies Arising From Whelan v. Jaslow

Because quite a number of the most contentious copyright issues arise from the Whelan v. Jaslow decision, this subsection focuses on that case. In the summer of 1986, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court decision in favor of Whelan Associates in its software copyright lawsuit against Jaslow Dental Laboratories. 30 Jaslow's program for managing dental lab business functions used some of the same data and file structures as Whelan's program (to which Jaslow had access), and five subroutines of Jaslow's program functioned very similarly to Whelan's. The trial court inferred that there were substantial similarities in the underlying structure of the two programs based largely on a comparison of similarities in the user interfaces of the two programs, even though user interface similarities were not the basis for the infringement claim. Jaslow's principal defense was that Whelan's copyright protected only against exact copying of program code, and since there were no literal similarities between the programs, no copyright infringement had occurred.

In its opinion on this appeal, the Third Circuit stated that copyright protection was available for the "structure, sequence, and organization" (sso) of a program, not just the program code. (The court did not distinguish between high- and low-level structural features of a program.) The court analogized copyright protection for program sso to the copyright protection available for such things as detailed plot sequences in novels. The court also emphasized that the coding of a program was a minor part of the cost of development of a program. The court expressed fear that if copyright protection was not accorded to sso, there would be insufficient incentives to invest in the development of software.

The Third Circuit's Whelan decision also quoted with approval from that part of the trial court opinion stating that similarities in the manner in which programs functioned could serve as a basis for a finding of copyright infringement. Although recognizing that user interface similarities did not necessarily mean that two programs had similar underlying structures (thereby correcting an error the trial judge had made), the appellate court thought that user interface similarities might still be some evidence of underlying structural similarities. In conjunction with other evidence in the case, the Third Circuit decided that infringement had properly been found.

Although a number of controversies have arisen out of the Whelan opinion, the aspect of the opinion that has received the greatest attention is the test the court used for determining copyright infringement in computer

program cases. The " Whelan test" regards the general purpose or function of a program as its unprotectable "idea." All else about the program is, under the Whelan test, protectable "expression'' unless there is only one or a very small number of ways to achieve the function (in which case idea and expression are said to be "merged," and what would otherwise be expression is treated as an idea). The sole defense this test contemplates for one who has copied anything more detailed than the general function of another program is that copying that detail was "necessary" to perform that program function. If there is in the marketplace another program that does the function differently, courts applying the Whelan test have generally been persuaded that the copying was unjustified and that what was taken must have been "expressive."

Although the Whelan test has been used in a number of subsequent cases, including the well-publicized Lotus v. Paperback case, 31 some judges have rejected it as inconsistent with copyright law and tradition, or have found ways to distinguish the Whelan case when employing its test would have resulted in a finding of infringement. 32

Many commentators assert that the Whelan test interprets copyright

protection too expansively. 33 Although the court in Whelan did not seem to realize it, the Whelan test would give much broader copyright protection to computer programs than has traditionally been given to novels and plays, which are among the artistic and fanciful works generally accorded a broader scope of protection than functional kinds of writings (of which programs would seem to be an example). 34 The Whelan test would forbid reuse of many things people in the field tend to regard as ideas. 35 Some commentators have suggested that because innovation in software tends to be of a more incremental character than in some other fields, and especially given the long duration of copyright protection, the Whelan interpretation of the scope of copyright is likely to substantially overprotect software. 36

One lawyer-economist, Professor Peter Menell, has observed that the model of innovation used by the economists who did the study of software for CONTU is now considered to be an outmoded approach. 37 Those econo-

mists focused on a model that considered what incentives would be needed for development of individual programs in isolation. Today, economists would consider what protection would be needed to foster innovation of a more cumulative and incremental kind, such as has largely typified the software field. In addition, the economists on whose work CONTU relied did not anticipate the networking potential of software and consequently did not study what provisions the law should make in response to this phenomenon. Menell has suggested that with the aid of their now more refined model of innovation, economists today might make somewhat different recommendations on software protection than they did in the late 1970s for CONTU. 38

As a matter of copyright law, the principal problem with the Whelan test is its incompatibility with the copyright statute, the case law properly interpreting it, and traditional principles of copyright law. The copyright statute provides that not only ideas, but also processes, procedures, systems, and methods of operation, are unprotectable elements of copyrighted works. 39 This provision codifies some long-standing principles derived from U.S. copyright case law, such as the Supreme Court's century-old Baker v. Selden decision that ruled that a second author did not infringe a first author's copyright when he put into his own book substantially similar ledger sheets to those in the first author's book. The reason the Court gave for its ruling was that Selden's copyright did not give him exclusive rights to the bookkeeping system, but only to his explanation or description of it. 40 The ordering and arrangement of columns and headings on the ledger sheets were part of the system; to get exclusive rights in this, the Court said that Selden would have to get a patent.

The statutory exclusion from copyright protection for methods, processes, and the like was added to the copyright statute in part to ensure that the scope of copyright in computer programs would not be construed too broadly. Yet, in cases in which the Whelan test has been employed, the courts have tended to find the presence of protectable "expression" when they perceive there to be more than a couple of ways to perform some function, seeming not to realize that there may be more than one "method" or "system" or "process" for doing something, none of which is properly protected by copyright law. The Whelan test does not attempt to exclude

methods or processes from the scope of copyright protection, and its recognition of functionality as a limitation on the scope of copyright is triggered only when there are no alternative ways to perform program functions.

Whelan has been invoked by plaintiffs not only in cases involving similarities in the internal structural design features of programs, but also in many other kinds of cases. sso can be construed to include internal interface specifications of a program, the layout of elements in a user interface, and the sequence of screen displays when program functions are executed, among other things. Even the manner in which a program functions can be said to be protectable by copyright law under Whelan . The case law on these issues and other software issues is in conflict, and resolution of these controversies cannot be expected very soon.

Traditionalist Versus Strong Protectionist View of What Copyright Law Does and Does Not Protect in Computer Programs

Traditional principles of copyright law, when applied to computer programs, would tend to yield only a "thin" scope of protection for them. Unquestionably, copyright protection would exist for the code of the program and the kinds of expressive displays generated when program instructions are executed, such as explanatory text and fanciful graphics, which are readily perceptible as traditional subject matters of copyright law. A traditionalist would regard copyright protection as not extending to functional elements of a program, whether at a high or low level of abstraction, or to the functional behavior that programs exhibit. Nor would copyright protection be available for the applied know-how embodied in programs, including program logic. 41 Copyright protection would also not be available for algorithms or other structural abstractions in software that are constituent elements of a process, method, or system embodied in a program.

Efficient ways of implementing a function would also not be protectable by copyright law under the traditionalist view, nor would aspects of software design that make the software easier to use (because this bears on program functionality). The traditionalist would also not regard making a limited number of copies of a program to study it and extract interface information or other ideas from the program as infringing conduct, because computer programs are a kind of work for which it is necessary to make a copy to "read" the text of the work. 42 Developing a program that incorporates interface information derived from decompilation would also, in the traditionalist view, be noninfringing conduct.

If decompilation and the use of interface information derived from the study of decompiled code were to be infringing acts, the traditionalist would regard copyright as having been turned inside out, for instead of promoting the dissemination of knowledge as has been its traditional purpose, copyright law would become the principal means by which trade secrets would be maintained in widely distributed copyrighted works. Instead of protecting only expressive elements of programs, copyright would become like a patent: a means by which to get exclusive rights to the configuration of a machine—without meeting stringent patent standards or following the strict procedures required to obtain patent protection. This too would seem to turn copyright inside out.

Because interfaces, algorithms, logic, and functionalities of programs are aspects of programs that make them valuable, it is understandable that some of those who seek to maximize their financial returns on software investments have argued that "strong" copyright protection is or should be available for all valuable features of programs, either as part of program sso or under the Whelan "there's-another-way-to-do-it" test. 43 Congress seems to have intended for copyright law to be interpreted as to programs on a case-by-case basis, and if courts determine that valuable features should be considered "expressive," the strong protectionists would applaud this common law evolution. If traditional concepts of copyright law and its purposes do not provide an adequate degree of protection for software innovation, they see it as natural that copyright should grow to provide it. Strong protectionists tend to regard traditionalists as sentimental Luddites who do not appreciate that what matters is for software to get the degree of protection it needs from the law so that the industry will thrive.

Although some cases, most notably the Whelan and Lotus decisions, have adopted the strong protectionist view, traditionalists will tend to regard these decisions as flawed and unlikely to be affirmed in the long run because they are inconsistent with the expressed legislative intent to have traditional principles of copyright law applied to software. Some copyright traditionalists favor patent protection for software innovations on the ground that the valuable functional elements of programs do need protection to create proper incentives for investing in software innovations, but that this protection should come from patent law, not from copyright law.

Controversy Over "Software Patents"

Although some perceive patents as a way to protect valuable aspects of programs that cannot be protected by copyright law, those who argue for patents for software innovations do not rely on the "gap-filling" concern alone. As a legal matter, proponents of software patents point out that the patent statute makes new, nonobvious, and useful "processes" patentable. Programs themselves are processes; they also embody processes. 44 Computer hardware is clearly patentable, and it is a commonplace in the computing field that any tasks for which a program can be written can also be implemented in hardware. This too would seem to support the patentability of software.

Proponents also argue that protecting program innovations by patent law is consistent with the constitutional purpose of patent law, which is to promote progress in the "useful arts." Computer program innovations are technological in nature, which is said to make them part of the useful arts to which the Constitution refers. Proponents insist that patent law has the same potential for promoting progress in the software field as it has had for promoting progress in other technological fields. They regard attacks on patents for software innovations as reflective of the passing of the frontier in the software industry, a painful transition period for some, but one necessary if the industry is to have sufficient incentives to invest in software development.

Some within the software industry and the technical community, however, oppose patents for software innovations. 45 Opponents tend to make two kinds of arguments against software patents, often without distinguishing between them. One set of arguments questions the ability of the PTO to deal well with software patent applications. Another set raises more fundamental questions about software patents. Even assuming that the PTO could begin to do a good job at issuing software patents, some question whether

innovation in the software field will be properly promoted if patents become widely available for software innovations. The main points of both sets of arguments are developed below.

Much of the discussion in the technical community has focused on "bad" software patents that have been issued by the PTO. Some patents are considered bad because the innovation was, unbeknownst to the PTO, already in the state of the art prior to the date of invention claimed in the patent. Others are considered bad because critics assert that the innovations they embody are too obvious to be deserving of patent protection. Still others are said to be bad because they are tantamount to a claim for performing a particular function by computer or to a claim for a law of nature, neither of which is regarded as patentable subject matter. Complaints abound that the PTO, after decades of not keeping up with developments in this field, is so far out of touch with what has been and is happening in the field as to be unable to make appropriate judgments on novelty and nonobviousness issues. Other complaints relate to the office's inadequate classification scheme for software and lack of examiners with suitable education and experience in computer science and related fields to make appropriate judgments on software patent issues. 46

A somewhat different point is made by those who assert that the software industry has grown to its current size and prosperity without the aid of patents, which causes them to question the need for patents to promote innovation in this industry. 47 The highly exclusionary nature of patents (any use of the innovation without the patentee's permission is infringing) contrasts sharply with the tradition of independent reinvention in this field. The high expense associated with obtaining and enforcing patents raises concerns about the increased barriers to entry that may be created by the patenting of software innovations. Since much of the innovation in this industry has come from small firms, policies that inhibit entry by small firms may not promote innovation in this field in the long run. Similar questions arise as to whether patents will promote a proper degree of innovation in an incremental industry such as the software industry. It would be possible to undertake an economic study of conditions that have promoted and are promoting progress in the software industry to serve as a basis for a policy decision on software patents, but this has not been done to date.

Some computer scientists and mathematicians are also concerned about patents that have been issuing for algorithms, 48 which they regard as dis-

coveries of fundamental truths that should not be owned by anyone. Because any use of a patented algorithm within the scope of the claims—whether by an academic or a commercial programmer, whether one knew of the patent or not—may be an infringement, some worry that research on algorithms will be slowed down by the issuance of algorithm patents. One mathematical society has recently issued a report opposing the patenting of algorithms. 49 Others, including Richard Stallman, have formed a League for Programming Freedom.

There is substantial case law to support the software patent opponent position, notwithstanding the PTO change in policy. 50 Three U.S. Supreme Court decisions have stated that computer program algorithms are unpatentable subject matter. Other case law affirms the unpatentability of processes that involve the manipulation of information rather than the transformation of matter from one physical state to another.

One other concern worth mentioning if both patents and copyrights are used to protect computer program innovations is whether a meaningful boundary line can be drawn between the patent and copyright domains as regards software. 51 A joint report of the U.S. PTO and the Copyright Office optimistically concludes that no significant problems will arise from the coexistence of these two forms of protection for software because copyright law will only protect program "expression" whereas patent law will only protect program "processes." 52

Notwithstanding this report, I continue to be concerned with the patent/ copyright interface because of the expansive interpretations some cases, particularly Whelan, have given to the scope of copyright protection for programs. This prefigures a significant overlap of copyright and patent law as to software innovations. This overlap would undermine important economic and public policy goals of the patent system, which generally leaves in the public domain those innovations not novel or nonobvious enough to be patented. Mere "originality" in a copyright sense is not enough to make an innovation in the useful arts protectable under U.S. law. 53

A concrete example may help illustrate this concern. Some patent lawyers report getting patents on data structures for computer programs.

The Whelan decision relied in part on similarities in data structures to prove copyright infringement. Are data structures "expressive" or "useful"? When one wants to protect a data structure of a program by copyright, does one merely call it part of the sso of the program, whereas if one wants to patent it, one calls it a method (i.e., a process) of organizing data for accomplishing certain results? What if anything does copyright's exclusion from protection of processes embodied in copyrighted works mean as applied to data structures? No clear answer to these questions emerges from the case law.

Nature of Computer Programs and Exploration of a Modified Copyright Approach

It may be that the deeper problem is that computer programs, by their very nature, challenge or contradict some fundamental assumptions of the existing intellectual property regimes. Underlying the existing regimes of copyright and patent law are some deeply embedded assumptions about the very different nature of two kinds of innovations that are thought to need very different kinds of protection owing to some important differences in the economic consequences of their protection. 54

In the United States, these assumptions derive largely from the U.S. Constitution, which specifically empowers Congress "to promote the progress of science [i.e., knowledge] and useful arts [i.e., technology], by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." 55 This clause has historically been parsed as two separate clauses packaged together for convenience: one giving Congress power to enact laws aimed at promoting the progress of knowledge by giving authors exclusive rights in their writings, and the other giving Congress power to promote technological progress by giving inventors exclusive rights in their technological discoveries. Copyright law implements the first power, and patent law the second.

Owing partly to the distinctions between writings and machines, which the constitutional clause itself set up, copyright law has excluded machines

and other technological subject matters from its domain. 56 Even when described in a copyrighted book, an innovation in the useful arts was considered beyond the scope of copyright protection. The Supreme Court's Baker v. Selden decision reflects this view of the constitutional allocation. Similarly, patent law has historically excluded printed matter (i.e., the contents of writings) from its domain, notwithstanding the fact that printed matter may be a product of a manufacturing process. 57 Also excluded from the patent domain have been methods of organizing, displaying, and manipulating information (i.e., processes that might be embodied in writings, for example mathematical formulas), notwithstanding the fact that "processes" are named in the statute as patentable subject matter. They were not, however, perceived to be "in the useful arts" within the meaning of the constitutional clause.

The constitutional clause has been understood as both a grant of power and a limitation on power. Congress cannot, for example, grant perpetual patent rights to inventors, for that would violate the "limited times" provision of the Constitution. Courts have also sometimes ruled that Congress cannot, under this clause, grant exclusive rights to anyone but authors and inventors. In the late nineteenth century, the Supreme Court struck down the first federal trademark statute on the ground that Congress did not have power to grant rights under this clause to owners of trademarks who were neither "authors" nor "inventors." 58 A similar view was expressed in last year's Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Services decision by the Supreme Court, which repeatedly stated that Congress could not constitutionally protect the white pages of telephone books through copyright law because to be an "author" within the meaning of the Constitution required some creativity in expression that white pages lacked. 59

Still other Supreme Court decisions have suggested that Congress could not constitutionally grant exclusive rights to innovators in the useful arts who were not true "inventors." 60 Certain economic assumptions are connected with this view, including the assumption that more modest innovations in the useful arts (the work of a mere mechanic) will be forthcoming without the grant of the exclusive rights of a patent, but that the incentives of patent rights are necessary to make people invest in making significant technological advances and share the results of their work with the public instead of keeping them secret.

One reason the United States does not have a copyright-like form of protection for industrial designs, as do many other countries, is because of lingering questions about the constitutionality of such legislation. In addition, concerns exist that the economic consequences of protecting uninventive technological advances will be harmful. So powerful are the prevailing patent and copyright paradigms that when Congress was in the process of considering the adoption of a copyright-like form of intellectual property protection for semiconductor chip designs, there was considerable debate about whether Congress had constitutional power to enact such a law. It finally decided it did have such power under the commerce clause, but even then was not certain.

As this discussion reveals, the U.S. intellectual property law has long assumed that something is either a writing (in which case it is protectable, if at all, by copyright law) or a machine (in which case it is protectable, if at all, by patent law), but cannot be both at the same time. However, as Professor Randall Davis has so concisely said, software is "a machine whose medium of construction happens to be text." 61 Davis regards the act of creating computer programs as inevitably one of both authorship and invention. There may be little or nothing about a computer program that is not, at base, functional in nature, and nothing about it that does not have roots in the text. Because of this, it will inevitably be difficult to draw meaningful boundaries for patents and copyrights as applied to computer programs.

Another aspect of computer programs that challenges the assumptions of existing intellectual property systems is reflected in another of Professor Davis's observations, namely, that "programs are not only texts; they also behave." 62 Much of the dynamic behavior of computer programs is highly functional in nature. If one followed traditional copyright principles, this functional behavior—no matter how valuable it might be—would be considered outside the scope of copyright law. 63 Although the functionality of program behavior might seem at first glance to mean that patent protection would be the obvious form of legal protection for it, as a practical matter, drafting patent claims that would adequately capture program behavior as an invention is infeasible. There are at least two reasons for this: it is partly because programs are able to exhibit such a large number and variety of states that claims could not reasonably cover them, and partly because of

the ''gestalt"-like character of program behavior, something that makes a more copyright-like approach desirable.

Some legal scholars have argued that because of their hybrid character as both writings and machines, computer programs need a somewhat different legal treatment than either traditional patent or copyright law would provide. 64 They have warned of distortions in the existing legal systems likely to occur if one attempts to integrate such a hybrid into the traditional systems as if it were no different from the traditional subject matters of these systems. 65 Even if the copyright and patent laws could be made to perform their tasks with greater predictability than is currently the case, these authors warn that such regimes may not provide the kind of protection that software innovators really need, for most computer programs will be legally obvious for patent purposes, and programs are, over time, likely to be assimilated within copyright in a manner similar to that given to "factual" and "functional" literary works that have only "thin" protection against piracy. 66

Professor Reichman has reported on the recurrent oscillations between states of under- and overprotection when legal systems have tried to cope with another kind of legal hybrid, namely, industrial designs (sometimes referred to as "industrial art"). Much the same pattern seems to be emerging in regard to computer programs, which are, in effect, "industrial literature." 67

The larger problems these hybrids present is that of protecting valuable forms of applied know-how embodied in incremental innovation that cannot successfully be maintained as trade secrets:

[M]uch of today's most advanced technology enjoys a less favorable competitive position than that of conventional machinery because the unpatentable, intangible know-how responsible for its commercial value becomes embodied in products that are distributed on the open market. A product of the new technologies, such as a computer program, an integrated circuit

design, or even a biogenetically altered organism may thus bear its know-how on its face, a condition that renders it as vulnerable to rapid appropriation by second-comers as any published literary or artistic work.

From this perspective, a major problem with the kinds of innovative know-how underlying important new technologies is that they do not lend themselves to secrecy even when they represent the fruit of enormous investment in research and development. Because third parties can rapidly duplicate the embodied information and offer virtually the same products at lower prices than those of the originators, there is no secure interval of lead time in which to recuperate the originators' initial investment or their losses from unsuccessful essays, not to mention the goal of turning a profit. 68

From a behavioral standpoint, investors in applied scientific know-how find the copyright paradigm attractive because of its inherent disposition to supply artificial lead time to all comers without regard to innovative merit and without requiring originators to preselect the products that are most worthy of protection. 69

Full copyright protection, however, with its broad notion of equivalents geared to derivative expressions of an author's personality is likely to disrupt the workings of the competitive market for industrial products. For this and other reasons, Professor Reichman argues that a modified copyright approach to the protection of computer programs (and other legal hybrids) would be a preferable framework for protecting the applied know-how they embody than either the patent or the copyright regime would presently provide. Similar arguments can be made for a modified form of copyright protection for the dynamic behavior of programs. A modified copyright approach might involve a short duration of protection for original valuable functional components of programs. It could be framed to supplement full copyright protection for program code and traditionally expressive elements of text and graphics displayed when programs execute, features of software that do not present the same dangers of competitive disruption from full copyright protection.

The United States is, in large measure, already undergoing the development of a sui generis law for protection of computer software through case-by-case decisions in copyright lawsuits. Devising a modified copyright approach to protecting certain valuable components that are not suitably protected under the current copyright regime would have the advantage of allowing a conception of the software protection problem as a whole, rather than on a piecemeal basis as occurs in case-by-case litigation in which the

skills of certain attorneys and certain facts may end up causing the law to develop in a skewed manner. 70

There are, however, a number of reasons said to weigh against sui generis legislation for software, among them the international consensus that has developed on the use of copyright law to protect software and the trend toward broader use of patents for software innovations. Some also question whether Congress would be able to devise a more appropriate sui generis system for protecting software than that currently provided by copyright. Some are also opposed to sui generis legislation for new technology products such as semiconductor chips and software on the ground that new intellectual property regimes will make intellectual property law more complicated, confusing, and uncertain.

Although there are many today who ardently oppose sui generis legislation for computer programs, these same people may well become among the most ardent proponents of such legislation if the U.S. Supreme Court, for example, construes the scope of copyright protection for programs to be quite thin, and reiterates its rulings in Benson, Flook, and Diehr that patent protection is unavailable for algorithms and other information processes embodied in software.

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

After adopting copyright as a form of legal protection for computer programs, the United States campaigned vigorously around the world to persuade other nations to protect computer programs by copyright law as well. These efforts have been largely successful. Although copyright is now an international norm for the protection of computer software, the fine details of what copyright protection for software means, apart from protection against exact copying of program code, remain somewhat unclear in other nations, just as in the United States.

Other industrialized nations have also tended to follow the U.S. lead concerning the protection of computer program-related inventions by patent

law. 71 Some countries that in the early 1960s were receptive to the patenting of software innovations became less receptive after the Gottschalk v. Benson decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Some even adopted legislation excluding computer programs from patent protection. More recently, these countries are beginning to issue more program-related patents, once again paralleling U.S. experience, although as in the United States, the standards for patentability of program-related inventions are somewhat unclear. 72 If the United States and Japan continue to issue a large number of computer program-related patents, it seems quite likely other nations will follow suit.

There has been strong pressure in recent years to include relatively specific provisions about intellectual property issues (including those affecting computer programs) as part of the international trade issues within the framework of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). 73 For a time, the United States was a strong supporter of this approach to resolution of disharmonies among nations on intellectual property issues affecting software. The impetus for this seems to have slackened, however, after U.S. negotiators became aware of a lesser degree of consensus among U.S. software developers on certain key issues than they had thought was the case. Since the adoption of its directive on software copyright law, the European Community (EC) has begun pressing for international adoption of its position on a number of important software issues, including its copyright rule on decompilation of program code.

There is a clear need, given the international nature of the market for software, for a substantial international consensus on software protection issues. However, because there are so many hotly contested issues concerning the extent of copyright and the availability of patent protection for computer programs yet to be resolved, it may be premature to include very specific rules on these subjects in the GATT framework.

Prior to the adoption of the 1991 European Directive on the Protection of Computer Programs, there was general acceptance in Europe of copyright as a form of legal protection for computer programs. A number of nations had interpreted existing copyright statutes as covering programs. Others took legislative action to extend copyright protection to software. There was, however, some divergence in approach among the member nations of the EC in the interpretation of copyright law to computer software. 74

France, for example, although protecting programs under its copyright law, put software in the same category as industrial art, a category of work that is generally protected in Europe for 25 years instead of the life plus 50-year term that is the norm for literary and other artistic works. German courts concluded that to satisfy the "originality" standard of its copyright law, the author of a program needed to demonstrate that the program was the result of more than an average programmer's skill, a seemingly patentlike standard. In 'addition, Switzerland (a non-EC member but European nonetheless) nearly adopted an approach that treated both semiconductor chip designs and computer programs under a new copyright-like law.

Because of these differences and because it was apparent that computer programs would become an increasingly important item of commerce in the European Community, the EC undertook in the late 1980s to develop a policy concerning intellectual property protection for computer programs to which member nations should harmonize their laws. There was some support within the EC for creating a new law for the protection of software, but the directorate favoring a copyright approach won this internal struggle over what form of protection was appropriate for software.

In December 1988 the EC issued a draft directive on copyright protection for computer programs. This directive was intended to spell out in considerable detail in what respects member states should have uniform rules on copyright protection for programs. (The European civil law tradition generally prefers specificity in statutory formulations, in contrast with the U.S. common law tradition, which often prefers case-by-case adjudication of disputes as a way to fill in the details of a legal protection scheme.)

The draft directive on computer programs was the subject of intense debate within the European Community, as well as the object of some intense lobbying by major U.S. firms who were concerned about a number of issues, but particularly about what rule would be adopted concerning decompilation of program code and protection of the internal interfaces of

programs. Some U.S. firms, among them IBM Corp., strongly opposed any provision that would allow decompilation of program code and sought to have interfaces protected; other U.S. firms, such as Sun Microsystems, sought a rule that would permit decompilation and would deny protection to internal interfaces. 75

The final EC directive published in 1991 endorses the view that computer programs should be protected under member states' copyright laws as literary works and given at least 50 years of protection against unauthorized copying. 76 It permits decompilation of program code only if and to the extent necessary to obtain information to create an interoperable program. The inclusion in another program of information necessary to achieve interoperability seems, under the final directive, to be lawful.

The final EC directive states that "ideas" and "principles" embodied in programs are not protectable by copyright, but does not provide examples of what these terms might mean. The directive contains no exclusion from protection of such things as processes, procedures, methods of operation, and systems, as the U.S. statute provides. Nor does it clearly exclude protection of algorithms, interfaces, and program logic, as an earlier draft would have done. Rather, the final directive indicates that to the extent algorithms, logic, and interfaces are ideas, they are unprotectable by copyright law. In this regard, the directive seems, quite uncharacteristically for its civil law tradition, to leave much detail about how copyright law will be applied to programs to be resolved by litigation.

Having just finished the process of debating the EC directive about copyright protection of computer programs, intellectual property specialists in the EC have no interest in debating the merits of any sui generis approach to software protection, even though the only issue the EC directive really resolved may have been that of interoperability. Member states will likely have to address another controversial issue—whether or to what extent user interests in standardization of user interfaces should limit the scope of copyright

protection for programs—as they act on yet another EC directive, one that aims to standardize user interfaces of computer programs. Some U.S. firms may perceive this latter directive as an effort to appropriate valuable U.S. product features.

Japan was the first major industrialized nation to consider adoption of a sui generis approach to the protection of computer programs. 77 Its Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI) published a proposal that would have given 15 years of protection against unauthorized copying to computer programs that could meet a copyright-like originality standard under a copyright-like registration regime. MITI attempted to justify its proposed different treatment for computer programs as one appropriate to the different character of programs, compared with traditional copyrighted works. 78 The new legal framework was said to respond and be tailored to the special character of programs. American firms, however, viewed the MITI proposal, particularly its compulsory license provisions, as an effort by the Japanese to appropriate the valuable products of the U.S. software industry. Partly as a result of U.S. pressure, the MITI proposal was rejected by the Japanese government, and the alternative copyright proposal made by the ministry with jurisdiction over copyright law was adopted.

Notwithstanding their inclusion in copyright law, computer programs are a special category of protected work under Japanese law. Limiting the scope of copyright protection for programs is a provision indicating that program languages, rules, and algorithms are not protected by copyright law. 79 Japanese case law under this copyright statute has proceeded along lines similar to U.S. case law, with regard to exact and near-exact copying of program code and graphical aspects of videogame programs, 80 but there have been some Japanese court decisions interpreting the exclusion from protection provisions in a manner seemingly at odds with some U.S. Decisions.

The Tokyo High Court, for example, has opined that the processing flow of a program (an aspect of a program said to be protectable by U.S. law in the Whelan case) is an algorithm within the meaning of the copyright limitation provision. 81 Another seems to bear out Professor Karjala's prediction that Japanese courts would interpret the programming language limitation to permit firms to make compatible software. 82 There is one Japanese decision that can be read to prohibit reverse engineering of program code, but because this case involved not only disassembly of program code but also distribution of a clearly infringing program, the legality of intermediate copying to discern such things as interface information is unclear in Japan. 83

Other Nations

The United States has been pressing a number of nations to give "proper respect" to U.S. intellectual property products, including computer programs. In some cases, as in its dealings with the People's Republic of China, the United States has been pressing for new legislation to protect software under copyright law. In some cases, as in its dealings with Thailand, the United States has been pressing for more vigorous enforcement of intellectual property laws as they affect U.S. intellectual property products. In other cases, as in its dealings with Brazil, the United States pressed for repeal of sui generis legislation that disadvantaged U.S. software producers, compared with Brazilian developers. The United States has achieved some success in these efforts. Despite these successes, piracy of U.S.-produced software and other intellectual property products remains a substantial source of concern.

FUTURE CHALLENGES

Many of the challenges posed by use of existing intellectual property laws to protect computer programs have been discussed in previous sections. This may, however, only map the landscape of legal issues of widespread concern today. Below are some suggestions about issues as to which computer programs may present legal difficulties in the future.

Advanced Software Systems

It has thus far been exceedingly difficult for the legal system to resolve even relatively simple disputes about software intellectual property rights, such as those involved in the Lotus v. Paperback Software case. This does not bode well for how the courts are likely to deal with more complex problems presented by more complex software in future cases. The difficulties arise partly from the lack of familiarity of judges with the technical nature of computers and software, and partly from the lack of close analogies within the body of copyright precedents from which resolutions of software issues might be drawn. The more complex the software, the greater is the likelihood that specially trained judges will be needed to resolve intellectual property disputes about the software. Some advanced software systems are also likely to be sufficiently different from traditional kinds of copyrighted works that the analogical distance between the precedents and a software innovation may make it difficult to predict how copyright law should be applied to it. What copyright protection should be available, for example, to a user interface that responds to verbal commands, gestures, or movements of eyeballs?

Digital Media

The digital medium itself may require adaptation of the models underlying existing intellectual property systems. 84 Copyright law is built largely on the assumption that authors and publishers can control the manufacture and distribution of copies of protected works emanating from a central source. The ease with which digital works can be copied, redistributed, and used by multiple users, as well as the compactness and relative invisibility of works in digital form, have already created substantial incentives for developers of digital media products to focus their commercialization efforts on controlling the uses of digital works, rather than on the distribution of copies, as has more commonly been the rule in copyright industries.

Rules designed for controlling the production and distribution of copies may be difficult to adapt to a system in which uses need to be controlled. Some digital library and hypertext publishing systems seem to be designed to bypass copyright law (and its public policy safeguards, such as the fair use rule) and establish norms of use through restrictive access licensing

agreements. 85 Whether the law will eventually be used to regulate conditions imposed on access to these systems, as it has regulated access to such communication media as broadcasting, remains to be seen. However, the increasing convergence of intellectual property policy, broadcast and telecommunications policy, and other aspects of information policy seems inevitable.

There are already millions of people connected to networks of computers, who are thereby enabled to communicate with one another with relative ease, speed, and reliability. Plans are afoot to add millions more and to allow a wide variety of information services to those connected to the networks, some of which are commercial and some of which are noncommercial in nature. Because networks of this type and scope are a new phenomenon, it would seem quite likely that some new intellectual property issues will arise as the use of computer networks expands. The more commercial the uses of the networks, the more likely intellectual property disputes are to occur.

More of the content distributed over computer networks is copyrighted than its distributors seem to realize, but even as to content that has been recognized as copyrighted, there is a widespread belief among those who communicate over the net that at least noncommercial distributions of content—no matter the number of recipients—are "fair uses" of the content. Some lawyers would agree with this; others would not. Those responsible for the maintenance of the network may need to be concerned about potential liability until this issue is resolved.

A different set of problems may arise when commercial uses are made of content distributed over the net. Here the most likely disputes are those concerning how broad a scope of derivative work rights copyright owners should have. Some owners of copyrights can be expected to resist allowing anyone but themselves (or those licensed by them) to derive any financial benefit from creating a product or service that is built upon the value of their underlying work. Yet value-added services may be highly desirable to consumers, and the ability of outsiders to offer these products and services may spur beneficial competition. At the moment, the case law generally regards a copyright owner's derivative work right as infringed only if a recognizable block of expression is incorporated into another work. 86 How-

ever, the ability of software developers to provide value-added products and services that derive value from the underlying work without copying expression from it may lead some copyright owners to seek to extend the scope of derivative work rights.

Patents and Information Infrastructure of the Future

If patents are issued for all manner of software innovations, they are likely to play an important role in the development of the information infrastructure of the future. Patents have already been issued for hypertext navigation systems, for such things as latent semantic indexing algorithms, and for other software innovations that might be used in the construction of a new information infrastructure. Although it is easy to develop a list of the possible pros and cons of patent protection in this domain, as in the more general debate about software patents, it is worth noting that patents have not played a significant role in the information infrastructure of the past or of the present. How patents would affect the development of the new information infrastructure has not been given the study this subject may deserve.

Conflicts Between Information Haves and Have-Nots on an International Scale

When the United States was a developing nation and a net importer of intellectual property products, it did not respect copyright interests of any authors but its own. Charles Dickens may have made some money from the U.S. tours at which he spoke at public meetings, but he never made a dime from the publication of his works in the United States. Now that the United States is a developed nation and a net exporter of intellectual property products, its perspective on the rights of developing nations to determine for themselves what intellectual property rights to accord to the products of firms of the United States and other developed nations has changed. Given the greater importance nowadays of intellectual property products, both to the United States and to the world economy, it is foreseeable that there will be many occasions on which developed and developing nations will have disagreements on intellectual property issues.

The United States will face a considerable challenge in persuading other nations to subscribe to the same detailed rules that it has for dealing with intellectual property issues affecting computer programs. It may be easier for the United States to deter outright ''piracy" (unauthorized copying of the whole or substantially the whole of copyrighted works) of U.S. intellectual property products than to convince other nations that they must adopt the same rules as the United States has for protecting software.

It is also well for U.S. policymakers and U.S. firms to contemplate the possibility that U.S. firms may not always have the leading position in the world market for software products that they enjoy today. When pushing for very "strong" intellectual property protection for software today in the expectation that this will help to preserve the U.S. advantage in the world market, U.S. policymakers should be careful not to push for adoption of rules today that may substantially disadvantage them in the world market of the future if, for reasons not foreseen today, the United States loses the lead it currently enjoys in the software market.

As technological developments multiply around the globe—even as the patenting of human genes comes under serious discussion—nations, companies, and researchers find themselves in conflict over intellectual property rights (IPRs). Now, an international group of experts presents the first multidisciplinary look at IPRs in an age of explosive growth in science and technology.

This thought-provoking volume offers an update on current international IPR negotiations and includes case studies on software, computer chips, optoelectronics, and biotechnology—areas characterized by high development cost and easy reproducibility. The volume covers these and other issues:

• Modern economic theory as a basis for approaching international IPRs.
• U.S. intellectual property practices versus those in Japan, India, the European Community, and the developing and newly industrializing countries.
• Trends in science and technology and how they affect IPRs.
• Pros and cons of a uniform international IPRs regime versus a system reflecting national differences.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.