Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

JPEG Patent Challenged

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the clearer-heads dept.

ChocLinux writes "The Public Patent Foundation has filed a request at the US Patent Office to revoke Compression Labs' data compression patent, which it is reportedly using to harrass anyone that implements the JPEG format. 'CLI's aggressive assertion of the '672 patent is causing substantial public harm by threatening this international standard on which the public relies,' says Pubpat in its filing."

5 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. Yeesh! Didn't they learn from Unisys by fz00 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who wasted time chasing this while nearly putting themselves out of business. How about focusing on some real products???

  2. DONATE!! by backslashdot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Get this patent overturned. It's extremely important to get these ridiculous technology stifling unoriginal patents overturned.

    Where the hell is EFF on this? Pubpatents is getting my money this year and I recommend you guys donate there as well if you are into donating to tech freedom.

    1. Re:DONATE!! by ChaosDiscord · · Score: 5, Insightful
      ...and the fact the EFF realizes the company is simply enforcing their rights to the patent under law.

      Why would the EFF care that they're "simply enforcing their rights"? A major part of the EFF's work is to fight things that may be technically legal, but are morally bankrupt. In some cases they can be fought in the courts by challenging the legality or interpretation of the law. In this particular case a major public standard is built on this patent. It was believed that there were no costs involved with implementing it; the patent was not known about. A decade went by without anyone complaining that it was infringing. Suddenly the owner can pop up and announce that he can shut down a standard used across the world by just about anyone with a computer? Forgent is hardly "simply" enforcing their rights. They are knowingly attempting to blackmail major industries with a submarine patent. They're scum, they're abusing the law, and it would be appropriate for the EFF to be involved. There are many reasons the EFF might not be involved, including the imminent expiration you mentioned. But skipping this case because Forgent is technically within the letter of the law is not a reason.

      --
      Search 2010 Gen Con events
  3. Re:So what? by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Um...did you even read the wikipedia article you referenced?

    From your post:
    Unlike JPEGs, PNGs can be lossless
    And from the article:
    PNG (Portable Network Graphics) is a lossless bitmap image format.
    By saying PNGs can be lossless, you imply they can be lossy as well...which is not what they were designed for.

    From your post:
    Sure, they tend to be a bit larger than JPEGs, but I figure the gain in quality is often worth it.
    And from the article:
    Using PNG instead of a high quality JPEG for such images would result in a large increase in filesize (often 5-10 times) with negligible gain in quality.

    And finally, from the article:
    PNG was not intended to replace the other popular web image format JPEG.

    PNG is intended as a replacement for GIF, not JPG.

    Hope this clears things up.

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  4. Re:Yeesh! Didn't they learn from Unisys by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Real products are a distraction for these people. Forgent got millions out of various companies without developing anything. Since the legal fees (costs) are much less than the licensing revenue, it's a self-perpetuating system. The RIAA settlements are the same way; each settlement pays for N new lawsuits to be filed and the profit rises exponentially.