OT: Is jpeg a true open standard without patents?

[John Jay Smith]

The news is that MS is making a new image format thats called WMP
windows media Picture

it boasts half the size of an image with the same quality of jpeg.

I am sure an uproar will come against MS for this.. the same happened with
WMV and WMA,
when they first came out.
But my question is this: is JPEG a totally open standard without a patent
attached to it?

Some googling gave me pages that claim that this is not as simple as one
might think at first.
Also many apps have notices that they use JPEG group technology, like msn
messenger
(see screenshot) http://img112.imageshack.us/img112/9896/msnmess4lm.jpg

 

[Ben]

But my question is this: is JPEG a totally open standard without a patent
attached to it?

No, basically.

"Forgent Networks, which two years ago said it would pursue royalties on
its JPEG patent, has renewed its offensive.

The compression patent used in the popular image format, (USPTO
4,698,672, or '672), was filed by Compression Labs in October 1986. This
dormant company was acquired by Forgent Networks in 1997. In June 2002,
Forgent announced that it had "sole and exclusive right to use and
license all the claims" of '672 in all fields except satellite
broadcasting. Widespread alarm and dismay accompanied the news that
Forgent had persuaded Sony Corporation to pay $15m for use of the fees.

The furore died down after the ISO threatened to withdraw
standards-blessing from the format. ISO can only endorse royalty-free
formats. However, Forgent claims to have netted $90m in various
licensing royalties since then.

Today's suit targets thirty industry refuseniks who Forgent says have
rejected its royalty terms. These include Japanese consumer electronics
giants JVC, Matsushita (Panasonic) and Ricoh; camera companies Fuji
Photo Film, Agfa, Eastman Kodak; PC makers IBM, Dell, Apple, HP, Toshiba
and Gateway; Xerox and Palm; and software companies including Adobe,
Macromedia, and JASC."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/23/forgent_jpeg_suit/

Search the Register for Forgent to dig up any more you need to know

 

[John Jay Smith]

Great info ! thanks Ben!

No, basically.

"Forgent Networks, which two years ago said it would pursue royalties on
its JPEG patent, has renewed its offensive.

The compression patent used in the popular image format, (USPTO 4,698,672,
or '672), was filed by Compression Labs in October 1986. This dormant
company was acquired by Forgent Networks in 1997. In June 2002, Forgent
announced that it had "sole and exclusive right to use and license all the
claims" of '672 in all fields except satellite broadcasting. Widespread
alarm and dismay accompanied the news that Forgent had persuaded Sony
Corporation to pay $15m for use of the fees.

The furore died down after the ISO threatened to withdraw
standards-blessing from the format. ISO can only endorse royalty-free
formats. However, Forgent claims to have netted $90m in various licensing
royalties since then.

Today's suit targets thirty industry refuseniks who Forgent says have
rejected its royalty terms. These include Japanese consumer electronics
giants JVC, Matsushita (Panasonic) and Ricoh; camera companies Fuji Photo
Film, Agfa, Eastman Kodak; PC makers IBM, Dell, Apple, HP, Toshiba and
Gateway; Xerox and Palm; and software companies including Adobe,
Macromedia, and JASC."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/23/forgent_jpeg_suit/

Search the Register for Forgent to dig up any more you need to know

 

[Colonel Mustard Green]

The compression patent used in the popular image format, (USPTO
4,698,672, or '672), was filed by Compression Labs in October 1986. This

Surely it's expired by now? Whatever lawsuits Forgent has going now
are for use of JPEG before 2004.

The copyright of the IJG JPEG library requires this notice --
it has nothing to do with patents.

 

[John Jay Smith]

why would a patent in 1986 be expired?

if thats the case then Microsoft is opensource! Hurray!!!

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=BBQ=AB?=]

why would a patent in 1986 be expired?

Because U.S. patents expire twenty years after they're filed or
seventeen years after they're granted, depending on some things you
could easily google.

if thats the case then Microsoft is opensource! Hurray!!!

I can't guess why you'd think so.

 

[Chris Lee]

The news is that MS is making a new image format thats called WMP
windows media Picture

it boasts half the size of an image with the same quality of jpeg.

I am sure an uproar will come against MS for this.. the same
happened with
WMV and WMA,
when they first came out.

A load of Microsoft Bullshit. The only people who actually
buy this crap from them are morons like you who don't know a damn thing
about graphics formats to begin with but try to act like they
are some kind of expert on the subject with their Astroturfing posts
to newsgroups like this one and other places.

..

 

[Dewey Edwards]

No, basically.

"Forgent Networks, which two years ago said it would pursue royalties on
its JPEG patent, has renewed its offensive.

The compression patent used in the popular image format, (USPTO
4,698,672, or '672), was filed by Compression Labs in October 1986. This
dormant company was acquired by Forgent Networks in 1997. In June 2002,
Forgent announced that it had "sole and exclusive right to use and
license all the claims" of '672 in all fields except satellite
broadcasting. Widespread alarm and dismay accompanied the news that
Forgent had persuaded Sony Corporation to pay $15m for use of the fees.

The furore died down after the ISO threatened to withdraw
standards-blessing from the format. ISO can only endorse royalty-free
formats. However, Forgent claims to have netted $90m in various
licensing royalties since then.

Today's suit targets thirty industry refuseniks who Forgent says have
rejected its royalty terms. These include Japanese consumer electronics
giants JVC, Matsushita (Panasonic) and Ricoh; camera companies Fuji
Photo Film, Agfa, Eastman Kodak; PC makers IBM, Dell, Apple, HP, Toshiba
and Gateway; Xerox and Palm; and software companies including Adobe,
Macromedia, and JASC."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/23/forgent_jpeg_suit/

Search the Register for Forgent to dig up any more you need to know

Or here - http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060526105754880

"NEW YORK -- May 26, 2006 -- In the reexamination proceeding initiated
late last year by the Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT"), the United
States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected the broadest claims of
the patent Forgent Networks (Nasdaq: FORG) is asserting against the
Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) international standard for the
electronic sharing of photo-quality images. In its Office Action
released yesterday, the Patent Office found that the prior art
submitted by PUBPAT completely anticipated the broadest claims of the
patent, U.S. Patent No. 4,698,672 (the '672 Patent)."

 

[Franklin]

Lines: 20
Organization: Octanews
NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 May 2006 03:33:58 CDT
X-Complaints-To: (e-mail address removed)
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.comp.freeware:498837

No, basically.

"Forgent Networks, which two years ago said it would pursue
royalties on its JPEG patent, has renewed its offensive.

-- snip --

Amazing.

And ISTR British Telecom were once starting to pursue their alleged
rights to patent the click action (on a hyperlink). Too much!

 

[Franklin]

Lines: 16
Organization: Octanews
NNTP-Posting-Date: 27 May 2006 03:35:00 CDT
X-Complaints-To: (e-mail address removed)
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.comp.freeware:498838

Or here - http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20060526105754880

"NEW YORK -- May 26, 2006 -- In the reexamination proceeding initiated
late last year by the Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT"), the United
States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected the broadest claims of
the patent Forgent Networks (Nasdaq: FORG) is asserting against the
Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) international standard for the
electronic sharing of photo-quality images. In its Office Action
released yesterday, the Patent Office found that the prior art
submitted by PUBPAT completely anticipated the broadest claims of the
patent, U.S. Patent No. 4,698,672 (the '672 Patent)."

Hot, hot, hot news. Very timely. Well done.

 

[Tim]

No, basically.

"Forgent Networks, which two years ago said it would pursue royalties
on its JPEG patent, has renewed its offensive.

The compression patent used in the popular image format, (USPTO
4,698,672, or '672), was filed by Compression Labs in October 1986.
This dormant company was acquired by Forgent Networks in 1997. In
June 2002, Forgent announced that it had "sole and exclusive right to
use and license all the claims" of '672 in all fields except satellite
broadcasting. Widespread alarm and dismay accompanied the news that
Forgent had persuaded Sony Corporation to pay $15m for use of the
fees.
The furore died down after the ISO threatened to withdraw
standards-blessing from the format. ISO can only endorse royalty-free
formats. However, Forgent claims to have netted $90m in various
licensing royalties since then.

Today's suit targets thirty industry refuseniks who Forgent says have
rejected its royalty terms. These include Japanese consumer
electronics giants JVC, Matsushita (Panasonic) and Ricoh; camera
companies Fuji Photo Film, Agfa, Eastman Kodak; PC makers IBM, Dell,
Apple, HP, Toshiba and Gateway; Xerox and Palm; and software
companies including Adobe, Macromedia, and JASC."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/23/forgent_jpeg_suit/

Search the Register for Forgent to dig up any more you need to know

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060526-6930.html

 

[me]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060526-6930.html

Perhaps OT:
That page says [ quot ]
Momentum for a reform of the patent system in the US appears to
be building. [ /quot ]

What's happening in EU:
"EC: Software is not patentable"
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,39020651,39270929,00.ht
m

J

 

[John Jay Smith]

Thats why all the major networks that broadcast media over the net are using
WMA and WMV?

You are a fool. But you will see. Print out your post and stick it on a
wall.. after 3 years take a look at
it again... and cry.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re=EDnhardt_Kern?=]

The news is that MS is making a new image format thats called WMP
windows media Picture

it boasts half the size of an image with the same quality of jpeg.

Poor performance of WMP. Existing wavelet transformations ( allow
5% of JPEG size with same quality. But this patents are already
claimed and licences for encoders are *expensive*. So wavelets
are not wide spread in the image market.
(google for "wavelet plugin luratech")

Some googling gave me pages that claim that this is not as simple as one
might think at first.

JPEG never was a open standard. Maybe its now - I dont know.

PS: Microsoft *never* created something new in their company
history. They always jumped on running trains. (i.e. bought
patents, products, technologies). But Microsoft is one of the
best marketing&lawyer machines on the world (I think, mostly
because Bill Gates' father, who is/was attorney.)

Reinhardt
--

Ironie ist für dich ein Fremdwort, gelle?

Wenn du kein Grieche bist, dann dürfte Ironie auch für dich
ein Fremdwort sein ... (Sharky in de.soc.politik.misc)