Slashdot Mirror
31 Lawsuits Filed Over Alleged JPEG Patent
dcrouch writes "Compression Labs has initiated a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas against 31 major companies for infringement of its 4,698,672 patent. The patent, filed in 1986, includes 46 claims for various embodiments of digital signal compression technology and reportedly covers JPEG compression. From the dates on the face of the patent, it appears that it will expire in October 2004. This looming date may have prompted the suit. Compression Labs will certainly have a fight on its hands. A major question will be why the patentee waited so long to stake its claim. The Eastern District of Texas court has established special patent rules that help speed the progression of litigation."
Looks like we should have seen this coming a long time ago..._ not_free_patent
Published Thursday 18th July 2002 17:12 GMT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/07/18/jpegs_are
oh and here are some more related articles
Some Google results
_JS
Maybe. But given the two formats are for such completely different purposes I fail to see how this is relevant. PNG is much more obviously a competitor for GIF than for JPG.
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'"
- JRR Tolkien.
Not really. Compress a 640x480 photo image to ~50KB with PNG ;-) [and still look decent].
PNG is meant for *lossless* raster art.
JPEG is meant for *lossy* "photo realistic" art.
TOM is meant for pepsi.... need more pepsi....
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
PNG is there to replace GIF, not JPG.
JPG is still the best image format for photographs.
Jpeg is declared a lossey compression format in 2 ways now. 1) Image quality is degraded 2) your bank balance is degraded if you are sued for infringing on its patents
It's not a submarine patent, it was granted and published back in 1987.
Well, this isn't exactly an issue of a submarine patent. The implementation has been available for many many years, and they're only now trying to leverage their patent on it, as opposed to a submarine patent which is designed around technology that doesn't exist yet, and once someone actually invents it, is used to leverage patents from them. So, close, but not quite.
[insert witty comment here]
I know gimp doesn't have gif native because of the license but does have JPEG. Does this mean that they are going to get targeted for using JPEG?
Evolution or ID?
*best* .. well, that depends on what you're measuring. It's going to give you a smaller file size. A PNG will still more accurately recreate the original. You can convert a BMP into a PNG back and fourth a million times and you won't loose quality unless there is some form of error. Except for the lossless version of the JPEG2000 standard, you loose information every time you compress a JPEG. compressing back and fourth between jpeg and bmp quickly makes something that is unusuable. If space isn't an issue, you would want a lossless format. I would think you generally wouldn't want to convert it into a lossy format until the very last step- distribution, wherein effeciency of communication is more important than perfection of information.
Looking at the list of companies in that list, I see one interesting omission from the list of companies being sued, namely Microsoft. I find this slightly surprizing given the number of MS products that use jpegs, doubly so if the aim of this exercise is to raise cash for the patent holders.
They can't be worried about hitting companies that can afford lots of lawyers as there are some big names in that list of companies already.
Anybody know whether the beast of Redmond has paid for a license?
Submarine patent or not, they've essentially sat on it until well after it became a de-facto standard and only now started suing people. If it were a trademark (which you need to defend or else it becomes invalid) it would be thrown out of court. Why can't the same thing be done with patents?
Ok, what the hell is wrong with this picture: I patent an idea. Let the whole world use it as a standard for webpages/compressed images. Let my patent be used in technologies like digital cameras and the like without one single word of infringement or anything. I let this transpire for almost 18 years then BAM! i sue everyone who is using my patent with only a few months left on my patent. It's bullshit if you ask me. Why didnt the damn company sue for patent infringement before it got so out of control? Why is a company allowed to do this. In all honesty you should either do your best to enforce your patent or all you get is a product the no one else can patent. God damned this world is outta control
PNG and JPEG are for very different purposes.
PNG is a lossless compression format, aiming at graphical images.
JPEG is a lossy compression format, aiming at photos.
It's like shortening by abbreviations vs. shortening by digesting. With abbreviations, you can restore the exact original, but your compression ratio is limited. With digesting you get much better compression while still getting the important facts, assuming the digester knows enough about the subject of the text he writes a digest on.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
That is trademarks
Patents do not require that you defend them.
Yeah, well we all Know why we don't use png. I am working on a new layout for my website that calls for the heavy use of pngs (due to transparency), but when I showed it to a web-savvy friend he asked why not use GIF.
My point is that many people are still unaware of why PNG is better, despite having more than adequate time to become educated.
The real trouble is that microsoft still hasn't fixed png support, and the hacks, such as IE7 (by dean edwards) and sleight (www.skyzyx.com) aren't perfect.
For now, my site looks awesome in Moz/Opera compliant browsers, but only so-so in IE, and its a fully w3c compliant site.
JPG's are also useful in their own right, but lack certain features that make png's better. Interestingly enough, PNG's do well enough with photos for my admittedly low standards.
"We don't know what we are doing, but we are doing it very carefully,..." Wherry, R.J. Personnel Psychology (1995)
The goal is to exploit a loop hole in patent law where validity of patent is counted from the date when it was granted, and not from date where it was applied for. So, if you've got a patent application, and you know that no competitor is even close to being able to commercially exploit it, you (the application) just slow down the approval process as best as you can (by filing papers as late as possible, by introducing trivial amendments which forces the patent office to restart the procedure from the beginning, etc.). You keep on stalling like this until you see that a competitor is almost ready to infringe: you then let the application proceed at normal speed, and enjoy 25 years of monopoly from that date on.
Say no to software patents.
Do you keep wav files on your hard drive because they are loss-less?
After a certain point, compression isn't hindering the quality that much, and the amount of space that is saved is more important than the small amounts of the quality that are lost. Just like the mp3 format works so well by slimming down the things the human ear can't hear, jpg works by blending and compressing images in way that the human eye can barely tell the difference while saving optimum amounts of space.
I thought that at least the slashdot readers would know the difference between copyrights, trademarks and patents by now.
Patents cover an idea. If it's patented, you can't do it. You can't black-box reverse engineer it. You can't get divine inspiration and get it out of the thin air. You just can't do something that's patented until the patent expires.
Copyrights cover a specific expression of an idea, like source code or prose or poetry. You can do the same thing, as long as you don't copy the original.
Trademarks cover a word/phrase associated with a company/brand. You're not allowed to make software and sell it under the name of Microsoft.
Trademarks are something you need to enforce. Patents and copyrights, on the other hand, can't be lost until they expire.
If you've known you had a case but did not bring suit and allowed your damages to mount, your suit is barred by the doctrine of laches. They would have a good argument based on this to either dismiss the suit or severely limit their damage award, assuming the validity of the patent, which I'm not.
Could someone (maybe a senator?) explain to me: if the entire purpose of patents is to promote innovation and provide an incentive to innovate then WTF does any new innovation require the inventor to spend 3 years to check that it doesnt infringe 10,000 patents? In the computer world things change on a weekly basis, can we _please_ make patents expire much much faster and stop all this stupid non-sense with people having ownership of ideas that play a totally obvious role in our lifes or where infact covered by another idea: case study: pop-up windows! dont make me fucking laugh this should have been thrown out of court within 30 seconds, one click shopping:
ME: Hi,
SHOPKEEPER: Hey Theo how can i help you?
ME: id like this and that please,
SHOPKEEPER: Certainly ill charge it to your tab?
now if you came into MY court with this patent mr amazon i would fucking get down from my stand and BEAT YOU WITH MY GAVEL! fuck you!
damit patents piss me off so much.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
In a situation like a JPEG patent, the patentholder would want to wait until the technology was at its usage and value peak before trying to sue. That way, they stand the best chance of scaring the defendant into a quick and expensive settlement, rather than fight a behemoth on something they could care less about.
stuff |
In fact there is a version of MNG (muti-image PNG)which uses JPEG and is called JNG (JPEG Network Graphics).
This offers the advantages of the PNG/MNG file-format specifcations (transparency, meta-data, &c) along with the JPEG compression algorithm, and is meant to be a replacement for JFIF (the JPEG file image format) which is the commonest JPEG-based file format.
BTW, this story sounds *very* BAAD...
[woops...formatted now]
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley
[This post is in the public domain (copyright-free) unless otherwise stated]
That's a loaded question. When I create audio files, the answer is: I'd absolutely store wav (and similar) files on my hard drive. Why would I ever want a compressed master?
When I rip a CD, I store them as MP3's. The point is that original files shouldn't be compressed using a lossy format (unless you don't care...I do). When it's time to distribute the file, sure, crunch it down.
-Turkey
It seems to be, based on the links here that they don't own JPEG, but have patented a technology that is identical to JPEG. JPEG developed the same technology seperate from them (correct me if I am wrong).
What I am wondering about is the new JPEG2000 standard. Do they own that?
Just FYI JPEG2000 is very similar to JPEG in design except it uses the Discrete Wavelet Transform instead of the Discrete Cosine Transform to transform the 8x8 pixel blocks. It is less blocky than JPEG in general.
Seems to me this is a little stupid as neither company invented DCT or even the Huffman and run-length coding that make up the components of this scheme, and all of the components are public domain intellectual property.
This litigation seems like a cash grab more than protecting there IP. They wait until everyone is freely using it (and for the most part believing it is a free technology) and then they sue the largest companies using it (hey why arn't they sueing Microsoft?).
"Take that Lisa's beliefs!" - Homer Simpson
Yes, Gimp is in deep trouble. Rumor has it they'll have to fork over 50% of their profits.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
After perusing the comp.compression faq for an overview of jpeg (see question [75]), I don't think this patent, even if valid, will affect JPEG as we know it. As the parent post points out, the patent covers compression via diff's between images. (This is, as I understand it, a major component of MPEG encoding, so I'm curious why they're not the ones getting sued.) JPEG, as your web browser uses it, likely doesn't use such a technique. From the FAQ:
The hierarchical mode represents an image at multiple resolutions. For example, one could provide 512x512, 1024x1024, and 2048x2048 versions of the image. The higher-resolution images are coded as differences from the next smaller image, and thus require many fewer bits than they would if stored independently. (However, the total number of bits will be greater than that needed to store just the highest-resolution frame in baseline form.) The individual frames in a hierarchical sequence can be coded progressively if desired. Hierarchical mode is not widely supported at present.
My take is that this "hierarchical mode" extension is the part covered by the patent. The problem is that, assuming the FAQ article is correct, most implementations of JPEG decoding we encounter won't support it, meaning most people aren't going to be encoding their JPEG's this way since it would be incompatible with mass-market JPEG implementations. It sounds more like something a company would use as part of a proprietary format built on JPEG.
Bottom line: don't expect this to have any ramifications for Mozilla, IE, etc.
I am a man of const int sorrows
The abstract of the patent specifically states
"The present invention specifically relates to methods and apparatus useful in video compression systems..."
and
"Typically, the system determines differences between the current input signals and the previous input signals..."
(Emphasis mine)
JPEG is not a video compression system, nor does it use differences with previous "signals." MPEG, WMV, and before that Indeo, Cinepak, and other methods of compressing video (almost always) do.
Xesdeeni
Compared to those lossy processes, the difference between a PNG master and high quality JPEG master is negligible.
Great comparison. For one generation. But when you're editing pics you don't want to keep saving to a lossy format because each save will increase the noise. How would that pic look after 10 - 20 generations of saves as a JPEG?
You can compare single generations all you want and you'll get the same results (the JPEG looks great!) but that absolutely does not indicate thats how you should save your masters.
TW
"There's no point in acting all surprised about it. All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display in your local planning department on Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years, so you've had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaint and it's far too late to start making a fuss about it now." Douglas Adams. The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Visit Tutorials & guides collection
To save diskspace, perhaps?
It's your master! You don't want a lossy compressed master!... that's insane!
Note how the high-quality lossy jpegs are indistuingishable from the lossless formats...
Of course they are distinguishable, they're "lossy". Blow them up, manipulate them, do whatever you do, yeah, if you just look at them they're indistinguishable, but if you do anything else with them, the smashed-up hard edges, "ringing" artifacts, and all that stuff will quickly cause problems.
Ugh. I hate asking people for photos or clipart for websites because I know they'll do something to it to make it "easier to email".
Cropping, framing, adjusting the contrast and colours for a final image is horrible once somebody's done this to an image.
Wow...nothing like people quoting bad law on /. and getting modded up on it. Here is how it really works:
For patents filed prior to June 8, 1995, the length of the term is 17 years from date of issuance, regardless of the length of prosecution. Thus, you can keep the patent sitting in the patent office using continuing applications and other tricks, and then change the claims of the patent to closely match emerging technology. Also, because patent application publication did not automatically happen in apps filed 1995 and before, people would not have an opportunity to see that there was a pending patent that could cover their technology.
Apps filed between June 8, 1995 and May 28, 2000 have a term of 20 years from date of filing. However, this term of 20 years can be extended based upon delays in prosecution regarding secrecy orders, interferences, and/or successful appeals. (The URAA changed this law).
Apps filed after May 28, 2000 are given 20 years after filing, but they can be adjusted based upon on the number of days of delay caused by the PTO minus the number of days delay caused by the applicant. These adjustments are rather complicated, and usually not worth getting into (unless it is a pharm patent where keeping generics off the market mean huge money per day).
While I might be a patent lawyer, the above is not legal advice in any way.
Forgive me, because I can't find a link right now that includes the full story, this is from memory, but what essentially has happened is that a "white hat" patenteer has been bought by a "black hat" patenteer. The original company that patented this particular system made it clear from the start that they would not persue the patent for people who are merely using it in JPEGs. However, this never had the force of law.
That company no longer exists, its patent portfolio is with a new company that has no such qualms and has never made such a promise. That company, Compression Labs, is enforcing the patent.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Until a few years ago, US patents were not published until granted and the term was 17 years from grant. Consequently, an application could be kept pending for 20 years or more by filing continuation and continuation in part applications, all of which would have been secret. The aim was for the patent to emerge into a well developed industry to maximise potential income. Patents obtained with this tactic are what are referred to as submarine patents.
Now almost all US patent applications are published 18 months from the filing/priority date and the term is 20 years from the filing date. Thus, the existence of the application is public and delaying grant does not push the expiry date into the future, thereby removing the rationale for submarine patents.