JPEG: Time to pay up!!!
Tuesday, July 23, 2002 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize News
Most of the images on this site use JPEG (.jpg) for images.
JPEG uses a patented algorithm to do its thing. Now, after many years of royalty free use of that algorithm, the holder of the patent wants to start charging money for it!
JPEG uses a patented algorithm to do its thing. Now, after many years of royalty free use of that algorithm, the holder of the patent wants to start charging money for it!
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Nomad529
Reply #2 Tuesday, July 23, 2002 11:55 PM
Reply #2 Tuesday, July 23, 2002 11:55 PM
~What a bunch of crap...somebody's just looking to get rich(er)!!
Skull_One
Reply #3 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 1:05 AM
Reply #3 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 1:05 AM
Actually it is within their legal right. Regardless of what we think is ethical or moral, they have the option to enforce something they own.
This patent will run out in 2004. So most of the net should be safe. If you read who they are speaking to about this patent, you will find it is hardware based. The reason for this is simple econimics. Software can be changed very easily and hence little money to be gained. Hardware can't be changed easily. Sony paid them now for a small amount to avoid a possible larger settlement when the patent holds up in court. I doubt prior art will play a major roll in this court case. And the argument of "They should have enforced this earlier" will also not hold up since a new company acquired this IP/Patent and they are within the time table of enforcement.
This patent will run out in 2004. So most of the net should be safe. If you read who they are speaking to about this patent, you will find it is hardware based. The reason for this is simple econimics. Software can be changed very easily and hence little money to be gained. Hardware can't be changed easily. Sony paid them now for a small amount to avoid a possible larger settlement when the patent holds up in court. I doubt prior art will play a major roll in this court case. And the argument of "They should have enforced this earlier" will also not hold up since a new company acquired this IP/Patent and they are within the time table of enforcement.
DavidK
Reply #6 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 2:08 AM
Reply #6 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 2:08 AM
grrr... "They only started delving into it a year and half ago when the new management team came in."
Why does it not surprise me that this company is in Texas...
Why does it not surprise me that this company is in Texas...
Hiddenatnight
Reply #7 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 8:00 AM
Reply #7 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 8:00 AM
This will fail (in the aggregate) for the same reasons we discussed wincustomize charging fees. Other equally viable options exist in abundance, such as .png, rendering the service that .jpg formats provides, displaying images, abundant. On top of that, all those other formats are free.
Skull is correct that they are going after hardware manufacturers specifically, and they just might get a few. But in the big picture, this will be less than a blip in the marketplace.
Skull is correct that they are going after hardware manufacturers specifically, and they just might get a few. But in the big picture, this will be less than a blip in the marketplace.
paxx
Reply #8 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 9:01 AM
Reply #8 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 9:01 AM
It happened to the GIF format too. It changes little or nothing to the end user. In the GIF case, it's the software companies that have to pay a royalty for using the GIF format.
dagwinn
Reply #9 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 9:47 AM
Reply #9 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 9:47 AM
If you read into the history of the issue, one company holds a patent on the JPEG technology, but there is also a wealth of information (legally known as "prior art") showing that the JPEG standard was pretty well formulated and publicly available BEFORE the patent.
They may be able to bully some companies into ponying up money, but there's also a good chance that if they take it to court in the U.S., they just might lose.
Hiddenatnight's probably right...*blip*.
They may be able to bully some companies into ponying up money, but there's also a good chance that if they take it to court in the U.S., they just might lose.
Hiddenatnight's probably right...*blip*.
JcRabbit
Reply #10 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 10:00 AM
Reply #10 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 10:00 AM
Not exactly true, Paxx, the end user ends up suffering too. Unisys, the holders of the GIF patent (or rather, the patent on a compression algorithm used in the format) charges software companies an outrageous amount for a GIF license. The end result is that most shareware companies simply cannot afford to pay up, so they choose not to provide GIF support - a shame, since that is basically the only format that allows animated graphics and has thousands of nice animations freely available on the web. The user thus ends up losing the opportunity to use these animations on that company's applications.
Of course, some other companies will choose to support the format without even asking Unisys for a license - however, they do so at their own peril and will be in deep trouble if caught.
What I find deeply un-ethical about the whole issue is that the patent holders first wait secretly for a specific format to become very popular (which only happens because it is free) and only then try to enforce their patents.
Jorge Coelho
NextSTART 2.81 - A user interface you can actually use!
http://www.winstep.net - Winstep Software Technologies
IRC Chat: #winstep on AustNet
Of course, some other companies will choose to support the format without even asking Unisys for a license - however, they do so at their own peril and will be in deep trouble if caught.
What I find deeply un-ethical about the whole issue is that the patent holders first wait secretly for a specific format to become very popular (which only happens because it is free) and only then try to enforce their patents.
Jorge Coelho
NextSTART 2.81 - A user interface you can actually use!
http://www.winstep.net - Winstep Software Technologies
IRC Chat: #winstep on AustNet
C-Rat
Reply #11 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 10:00 AM
Reply #11 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 10:00 AM
DavidK wrote:
"Why does it not surprise me that this company is in Texas... "
What does this have to do with anything? I'm sure there are quite a few Texan who visit this site (I am one) that will take offense to your statement.
"Why does it not surprise me that this company is in Texas... "
What does this have to do with anything? I'm sure there are quite a few Texan who visit this site (I am one) that will take offense to your statement.
werewolf
Reply #12 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 10:48 AM
Reply #12 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 10:48 AM
I really can't believe that they would be so bold as to really try to enforce this on any large scale. I 2 years it won't make any difference.
C-Rat...I'm from Texas too. My first reaction was to
. I don't think he meant that as a serious jab. Right DavidK 
C-Rat...I'm from Texas too. My first reaction was to
. I don't think he meant that as a serious jab. Right DavidK 
Frogboy
Reply #13 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 12:34 PM
Reply #13 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 12:34 PM
Indeed, GIF has been a real problem. Stardock hasn't created a program called Object Navigator because it can't realistically do one without supporting GIF. But GIF has a licensing fee PER user so we can't just create it and make it part of Object Desktop.
So if they are able to do this, it will have an impact.
So if they are able to do this, it will have an impact.
DavidK
Reply #15 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 1:24 PM
Reply #15 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 1:24 PM
Sorry, no offense to any proud and true Texan was intended (unless you're a top level exec in a corporation that uses political influence or litigation to unethically raise the cost of an entrenched or necessary service for the goal of gluttonous personal wealth - even at the expense of the corporation itself as well as the general public).
... read the news
... read the news
JDavidHarper
Reply #17 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 5:02 PM
Reply #17 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 5:02 PM
The JPG technology is essentially public domain by now. I have programs that use JPG tech, and I obviously will not pay extra to use what I have on my computer for my purposes. If they wanted to keep it for themselves and sell it, then they should have done so in the begining.
Tarkus
Reply #19 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 7:59 PM
Reply #19 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 7:59 PM
At one time people thought GIF was essentially public domain, too.
OTOH, time is more on our side this time around, with only two years left on the patent.
OTOH, time is more on our side this time around, with only two years left on the patent.
bluemonochrome
Reply #20 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 8:16 PM
Reply #20 Wednesday, July 24, 2002 8:16 PM
I'd much rather use .png anyways...the anti-aliasing, transparencies and drop shadows are the way that images should be done in this day and age. With the speed of Internet users rising, why should we be restricting ourself to such an old format based on users with 14.4 and 28.8 modems?
William Neal
CyberScript.NET
William Neal
CyberScript.NET
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Tuesday, July 23, 2002 11:42 PM