ISO Could Withdraw JPEG Standard

McSpew writes "According to The Register, the ISO is prepared to withdraw JPEG as a standard if Forgent Networks continues to assert its patent claims over JPEG's compression algorithm." I'm sure the JPEG committee would still be happy to hear of prior art.

Comments

Finally...

[Critical_]

Its about time that a precedent be set in the patent-crap(tm) going on these days. If a company is going to assert its patents and charge people for it after so long, it is more than justified to play hardball and in essence say "we'll pull your patent-laden bullsh*t off the list of standards". Okay sure, the alternatives are there but disk-space/image-quality/browser support must be there before anything will work. Before anyone says that PNG works as a replacement, I would have to say that the size increase alone prohibits their use especially on high-traffic sites where bandwidth counts.

Re:This is really no problem

[C.U.T.M.]

I'd check JPEG vs PNG file sizes again before I'd say 'in every way'.

Grrr.

[Retarded Penguin]

Jpeg is a STANDARD, doesnt matter about the patents it has. It has been STANDARDIZED through the test of time, I will grow to despise the new legislature. My digital camera can take either Jpeg or TIFF (tiffs too big) so i really dont have THAT Much of a choice. Image conversion is a pain in the ass.

This is a Good Thing(tm)

[smashr]

As strange as it sounds, this is actually a good move. We do NOT want jpeg on the list of standards if an entity can maintain patented control over it. Granted we will all still use jpeg, however ISO is definatly trying to make a point here - "you cant exclusively own it, and have it be an open standard" we should be happy that ISO is standing up for this!

Re:This is a Good Thing(tm)

[mosch]

Granted we will all still use jpeg, however...

That sentence embodies much of what's wrong with "the slashdot mentality". If you really don't like this patent bullshit, you should attempt to make a switch to PNG. If you merely say "this sucks", then continue to eat the tripe you're being fed, you've succeeded only in whining.

Re:This is a Good Thing(tm)

[SirSlud]

-2 for a lack of understanding in social dynamics. Like a flock of birds, humans need to generally be aware that we all agree on something (JPEG is not worth using anymore) before they actually _DO_ something about it.

So no, whining isn't a bad thing, because, if one year down the road our social collective asserts that JPEGs time has come due to the groundword of people expressing dissatisfaction with it now, it will be much easier to move to something else in one fell swoop.

Being a martyr can be useful, but more often its useless. Education takes time, but our actions are far more effective once everybody is on the same page.

So what?

[dlek]

So far as I can tell, this is what the ISO certainly should do, according to the letter and spirit of their policies. But I doubt it will have any effect on the situation except as a feel-good measure for those against the patent claim. I can't see how it will put any pressure on the dicks trying to claim patent rights; even if the ISO withdraws official standing, it will remain a de facto standard.

ridiculous

[tps12]

The ISO exists to promote formats and protocols as standards. It is basically a cheerleading group, which has its purpose, but not here. There is no way you can enforce true standardization. Nor can you pass a resolution that takes away a format's status as a standard.

HTML 4.0 only became a true standard when Microsoft supported it in Internet Explorer. Likewise, GIFs are still standard, despite the huge campaign for PNGs. And SMB is a standard for filesharing, while DOC is a standard for word processing.

JPEG is a standard because every graphics program and web browser supports it, not because of some gold star from the ISO. If the ISO wants to remain relevant, it needs to stop making these self-righteous and ineffectual proclaimations and start working on something that matters.

Damage

[Quantum Singularity]

If anything like this happens, it would obviously wreak havoc on the internet. We'd be forced to use clunky, bloated, Microsoft bitmaps. So, would owning your JPEGs now be akin to downloading Metallica MP3s, or cracking a program? This is worse than trying to copyright nothingness, or pop-unders, as X10 tried. -"Hey, you guys wanna buy some JPEGs?" --"If you get caught using that..." -"I know, I know, I made the original myself." I'm not really worried, mostly because of the last lines in the article, but in America, we do have stricter laws. But I've never seen anythink like this before.

ISO shouldn't fight fights

[name_already_taken]

ISO is a standardization body, it does nobody any good for them to get in the middle of a stupid dispute like this.

It's not just about your personal preference

[theRhinoceros]

It's also about every device that captures JPEG (digicams) and renders JPEG (web browsers) that is big enough for Forgent to demand money from. Personal decisions to move to PNG are fine and dandy and probably will win you some personal satisfaction, but in the greater scheme of things, JPEG is more entrenched in computing than a simple "OK, let's just whip up a script to batch everything over to PNG."

What is it with you PNG fanatics?

[Dthoma]

You people are all saying "Just switch to PNG" as if it can be done seamlessly and immediately. This is ridiculous. Many images on the Internet are in JPG format. Even assuming people could immediately switch to PNG, this wouldn't solve the problem because JPEG is actually a format where the amount of compression applied to pictures can be varied on a scale of 0 to 100. The amount of compression cannot be fine tuned as well with a PNG image.

Anyway, the issue at stake here is not just about whether or not JPGs can or cannot be used; if Forgent gets away with this, the door is open for all other companies to get away with submerging their patents and then springing royalties onto us. GIFs have been taken from us, and now it looks as if JPGs will be taken from us as well, and I don't think that it's a good idea to rely on just one picture format. I'd rather have choice, thanks very much.

.jpg will not die

[Wrexs0ul]

Ludicrous claim, yes. There's no way it'll kill off the JPeG format. The files are too well entrenched into everything we do and litigation against companies with embedded decoders would go way past the 2 years left on their patent.

Though by all means I'd love to see someone try to sue Microsoft because of Internet Explorer. Just like smokers trying to sue the tobacco industry: wait the plaintiff out until he/she pases on from the cause of the lawsuit. 15 million is way more than the 2-3mil corporate lawyers would make off the case.

-Matt

like it or not, JPG support is important

[frovingslosh]

Many posters seem to be missing the point. No matter what your religious view of other formats like PNG or GIF, the fact remains that there are plenty of devices out there right now, like digital cameras, (and so obviously will be for the next six months or so tas well) that produce JPG files. Personally I would like to see JPG replaced with a lossless format, or a least an option to select a format without loss and visual artifacts, but for quite a while there is going to be a need for software tools that manipulate JPG files. If this bogus claim is allowed to stand the effect will be that as software is updated it will often no longet support JPG files (remember how fast GIMP dropped GIF support?) It strikes me as pretty intolerable to have to revert to old software to use a camera or a clipart CD. This issue does matter, even if your personal belief is that there are other and better formats.

Re:Wrong approach

[martyn s]

Unfortunately, most of the people who have any power to change the patent system are quite happy with things as they are. And of the people who don't have that power, most of them don't really understand the problem, and therefore they don't really care.

Re:This could just mean...

[SnapShot]

What's t say that some other lawyer isn't going to claim that thay have a patent on one or more of the algorithms used in Jpeg 2000?

A search on patents using "image AND compression" at the US Patent office returned 21314 hits for 1996 through 2002, 6592 from 1991 through 1995, and 3741 from 1986 through 1990. That's a total of 31647 patents in 12 years.

Are you trying to tell me that there is nothing in the Jpeg 2000 specification that couldn't be shoehorned to fit within one of these 31 thousand patents given a sufficiently unscrupulous company and a technically clueless judge???

Just Say No

[Aging_Newbie]

If nobody gives in to their frivolous lawsuits then the patent is likely to be less defensible than if somebody does give in. Similar things happened for windowing in Y2K as well as many algorithms of wrapping around the century and finding dates in code. The bad news is that if a bunch of people pay these folks to go away then it helps validate their position and everybody could have to pay. Just my .02 worth...

The wrong way of doing business.

[$criptah]

Sometimes I don't get our economy. Although I understand that companies want to make money and profit from their products or services, I don't get why some companies are at the public's throat most of the time. Don't the executives get that by making the public angry they're not doing any good to the company's reputation? Do they really expect me to buy anything that involves a JPEG algorithm after a scandal that they put on? If everybody starts pushing for patents and enourmous fees nobody will be willing to do any business, because nobody wants to be sued. I have nothing against patens, they're cool, they can profit an inventor to a reasonable degree and benefit the public at the same time. The companies that hold patents, should be proud of them and open them up to the public, after all that everybody will benefit from whatever they invent and chances are that they're going to make more money than buy suing each other.

Re:The wrong way of doing business.

[RatBastard]

They don't care whio they anger because they don't make anything. They bought the IP of a failed comapny and are making their money back by mining through the patents an seeing who they can extort money from. Public image means nothing to muggers like this.

Open file standards

[xtronics]

Open file standards are intimately tied to the adoption of Linux. Recently, there have been a couple of posts on /. about active Linux advocacy/evangelism, trying to get government bodies to use Linux ,

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/17/124225 7&mode=thread&tid=106

There is a much better approach. We need to lobby our Government bodies to insist on using software that defaults to non-proprietary file standards (I'm going to refer to these as OFS(Open File Standards) from now on) as a first step.

OFS(Open file Standards) are a cause that we can get support from all computer users, as it benefits Linux but also Mac, Solaris and even M$ OS users.

A good argument to use is that the requirements to make information open and publicly available is discriminatory to poor people if the file standards require paying the M$ tax. An amendment to the FOIA(Freedom Of Information Act) at the federal and state levels is what to ask for. When the Feds require open file standards, Linux will become much more competitive. Once the files standards are open, Linux can easily succeed.

Be aware that GIF, JPG, are not open standards. Even PDF cannot be modified to add functionality. If Adobe decides to come out with a super set of PDF and collect royalties they have every right to do so. What we should push for is for the government (particularly the Federal level) to support open standards, free to all, much as the bureau of standards has done for units of measure (let's hope no one claims a patent on the meter).

Furthermore, we need to ask that all the extensions of government web pages be free of proprietary structures so that any browser will be assured of displaying the page content without depending on proprietary plugins.

Re:Does it matter much anyways??

[Kredal]

and you don't think the big company is gonna pass the buck on to you, the end user?

So what?

[eison]

How is this a threat to JPEG use? Does anyone believe that people use JPEG because of the ISO? Or do they use it because it's a great and convenient way to store images?

I'm afraid far more than this is necessary to fix the problem, unfortunately this threat doesn't even amount to a slap on the wrist.

Re:Ummm..

[Zueski]

you applaud them for the sense to make good rules and that they are following them. not everybody sees things as simple and straight-forward as you.