If they prevail, I predict that the resulting cost penalties on the use of JPEG will result in the eventual die-off of JPEG, and it's replacement by an open standard.
Well, hopefully that means software will provide better support for JPEG2000, I haven't been able to read if that's covered by their patent, but I've been dying for faster/better J2K support for a long time! It just hasn't been usable.
This isn't the first time we've seen this:
Who remembers ARC - the precursor to ZIP! Not many of you I'd guess, but they played the same game
And how many of us still use GIF! Well, more, but not as many as would have been using it (now there's PNG instead). Same game.
I don't think it will mean that much to the average person. It's the same sort of situation that happened with gif. Most people just switched to png and said screw gif. Some companies will eventually pay for continued use of jpg others will switch to some other compression method.
holy crap! what does this mean, worse case scenario, for our cameras & all our jpeg shots!
Short term, nothing. Long-term, it prolly just means that we will pay a bit more for software and hardware that uses the JPEG compression algorithm. Anyway, it will be years before this gets sorted out in the courts.
If forgent wins, the manufacturers will pass on the licensing cost to the consumer. JPEG will not die fast, but, like GIF will start to fade. You may recall that the GIF format was owned by CompuServe, and they decided to pursue licnesing, at which point the PNG format was introduced.
It's really about time that something like this pushed the industry to implement a "next generation" algorithm. Here's the economic driver to do so.
I doubt that .jpg will demise. The companies who are being sued, if Forgent wins, will simply have to pay a royalty (and penalty) to use the .jpg. They may go for other types of compression, though, that is true, and if that happens, when we use Photoshop or something, the .jpg option just won't be available if they take it out of the software.
will we still be able to use the older versions tho? How will they police that? Can they?
They can't and they won't. The problem is that when you upgrade software, the JPEG option could be removed if that company chooses not to license.
But I wouldn't panic. My guess is that they will go after the writers of jpeg, but not as vigorously after the readers. That would be a mistake, since having "acceptance" of your format is the cash cow.
Historically, when they kill the cash cow, like the ARC format, the money stops flowing.
I was doing some searches to see what part of the JPEG standard they patented, i.e., if it was the format or DCT. Was curious if it extended to J2K, but meanwhile I found this on slashdot and I thought I'd share (not my writing):
(begin letter)
Dear Forgent Employee,
Attached is some of my porn collection. I am returning it to your company because I inadvertantly used your patented JPEG format.
The rest is still to follow. My printer is slow. Playmate Debby especially requires a lot of ink because of her unorthodox techniques and tools, as you can clearly see in image #4057.
I'm thinking a shorter time to file for infringement is in order ... it seems as though the general pattern is to allow the format to flourish in widespread public use until it is accepted as a "standard" format, and {b]then[/b] to initiate some sort of legal action.
In poker they call it sandbagging. In law enforcement they call it entrapment. In this case, maybe they should call it "tough luck -- you should have filed this action a few years ago the first time you saw the patent infringed."
I'm thinking a shorter time to file for infringement is in order ... it seems as though the general pattern is to allow the format to flourish in widespread public use until it is accepted as a "standard" format, and {b]then[/b] to initiate some sort of legal action.
In poker they call it sandbagging. In law enforcement they call it entrapment. In this case, maybe they should call it "tough luck -- you should have filed this action a few years ago the first time you saw the patent infringed."
Agree, but this has apparently been going on since at least July 2002. I can't find a lot of recent technical/legal analysis, but I'm guessing that there case is strong enough, and that's why. The patent filer is the one generally credited with DCT, the basis for JPEG.
On the bright side, the patent expires in 2006. They say they will still be able to go after "past infringers".
I find this interesting, but I'd still rather be using JPEG2000!
Out of curiosity (and too lazy to do the research at midnite on a friday nite after a couple of beers...) is JPEG2000 a lossy compression scheme like JPEG? And also, in brief, what are the advantages of one over the other?
Out of curiosity (and too lazy to do the research at midnite on a friday nite after a couple of beers...) is JPEG2000 a lossy compression scheme like JPEG? And also, in brief, what are the advantages of one over the other?
JPEG2000 can be lossy or lossless. In general, the quality is much higher for the same size image. That's the best advantage of all.
The disadvantage is support. It's not as widely supported as JPEG.
I went to look for some online comparisons for you and found this interesting paper. If you just want to see the differences in lossy coding, check out the set of examples:
I don't understand how all those companies...big companies too, didn't pay for the use of the jpeg patent for all this time. Don't they have legal departments who are responsible for ensuring that they are complying with the law? (rhetorical question)
The article is talking about devices, so PC software might be completely unaffected. Also, it looks like some of the digital camera makers (Canon, Nikon, Sony) already pay licensing fees.
So I believe that even if they win (which might not be easy, given that JPEG is an ISO standard, see //www.jpeg.org/) the results will hardly be noticeable. So don't worry about the black helicopters above, they're after some other guy ... ;)
During the 80s, I represented Compression Labs here in Canada. They in fact did discover and invent many parts or component elements of today's most advanced compression algorithms in both still imagery and moving imagery. They may in fact have a legitimate claim to parts of the JPEG file format. But, not all!
I do not see any mention of the ISO in this story, who set the JPEG standard and who did coordinate numerous intellectual property rights agreements with several of the businesses and individuals who held relevant patent rights related to the JPEG format. So, perhaps there is more to this story then what is revealed by one press release?
This past week, I was at the National Association of Broadcasters convention in Las Vegas. The same debate is running at full steam there concerning the emerging MPEG4 and the new Microsoft Windows Media 9 specifications for compressed video and audio. So, this subject is far from over and is actually rather complex. It could take many, many years to resolve in the courts.
Intellectual Property Rights appear to be a terrific revenue stream for companies in today's competitive marketplaces.
I wonder why CLI has not gone after Polycom, Tandberg, and Sony in the video conferencing space? These companies use technology that are direct descendents from CLI.
