Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

This is the first time I've heard of a file format being patented. Do any freepers have any idea what effect this will have? I'm figuring if they keep the fee low, they can make a gazillion dollars. However, if they try to jack up the price too high, migrating to another format won't be that big a deal.
1 posted on 07/18/2002 6:12:23 PM PDT by Richard Kimball
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Richard Kimball
It is most likely the compression algorithm that is patented. This the case with Unisys and the LZW compression that is used in TIFF and GIF files. There is already another open standard for graphics files called "Portable Network Graphics" (PNG). Most browsers already handle it, as do many image-editing programs. Maybe this is the push that is needed to move to it.
2 posted on 07/18/2002 6:22:09 PM PDT by Old Airplane Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Richard Kimball
A few years ago, a company claimed rights to the .GIF format. They got a lot of $$$ from some bigger companies. A lot of websites, etc., converted their images from .GIF to .JPG (which was promoted as a free public use format).

Times change as companies buy out companies and change the intent.

There was developing going on of a PNG format which was also supposedly a free, public use image format. It gained some, but not real extensive, acceptance.

When the patent holder of the GIF started charging, they went after bigger companies and just threatened smaller users who continued to use GIF. The trouble was, there were literally millions of GIF's so they haven't come anywhere near closing down all those "illegal" image files.

Forgent will find the same. They can collect from larger companies, but they don't have enough attorneys or $$$ to go after all the individual JPG users.

Where you will notice a difference is in graphics editing software. The image editing software will have to pay a usage fee or not allow JPG editing/saving. Thus, upgrades to your favorite graphics imaging software will either be a bit more expensive or will "gray out" the save as function for JPG. (Of course, you can always convert to another non-JPG, non-GIF format.)
3 posted on 07/18/2002 6:33:26 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Richard Kimball
GIF is owned by Unisys. I've seen graphics programs that don't include GIF. I assume it's for that reason.

Unisys waited a long time before they began to assert their ownership rights. They got a lot of free NEGATIVE publicity. I have no idea of the legal status of the issue, but I see GIFs all over the web. I don't think most people take the Unisys claims too seriously. LZW (the GIF compression formula) is an algorithm. It's sort of like copyrighting 2+2 = 4.

I see the jpeg claims going the same way. If they "win", everyone will stop using the format. So what is the point?

4 posted on 07/18/2002 6:34:44 PM PDT by Semi Civil Servant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Richard Kimball
Hmmmmm. Has CompuServe/AOL/etc. gotten rich off of licensing the compression algorithm in GIF?
5 posted on 07/18/2002 6:37:31 PM PDT by Quicksilver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Richard Kimball
Actually, there are several copy written file formats. .FLT (Open Flight - a Real Time 3D Polygon format used in Game/Simulations) being one of them.
11 posted on 07/18/2002 6:58:32 PM PDT by Lord_Baltar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Richard Kimball
From http://users.belgacom.net/prepresspanic/formats/jpeg/fileformat.htm :

JPEG stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group, which is a standardization committee. It also stands for the compression algorithm that was invented by this committee.
13 posted on 07/18/2002 7:01:27 PM PDT by Abcdefg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Richard Kimball
Time to switch to .PPM.
16 posted on 07/18/2002 7:34:08 PM PDT by billybudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Richard Kimball
From Slashdot:

The patent doesn't cover JPEG (Score:5, Interesting)
by StevenMaurer on Thursday July 18, @02:57PM (#3910717)
(User #115071 Info | http://slashdot.org/)
I have a combined ten patents issued and in process in this specific field, so I believe I can call myself an expert in this matter.

The claims in this patent cover digital streams which tend to come in tuples, possibly with appended data. Something like this:
  (1,4) (1,3), (1,6), (4,6), (3,6), (9,6)

It specifically claims the separation of these tuples into separate run-length encoded streams.
In my example above, it might be:
    (3x1, 4, 3, 9)
    (4, 3, 4x6) ... where the 4x6 is a run length encoding.

There are some further claims about coding signs and amplitude, and some table lookup mechanism to support the above.

The trouble is (for the patent holders), this is in NO WAY how JPEG works.

JPEG divides a video stream into blocks (8x8 and 16x16) of pixels, and runs them through a descrete cosine transform. Basically, this turns the representation of the picture into level and percentages of vertical and horizontal waveforms of various frequencies. It then quantizes these values (reducing their size and precision), and orders them from low frequency to high frequency. Then it subjects the whole thing to a run-length algorithm optimized to eliminate zeros (which high quant values tend to do). JPEG is a lossy algorithm that takes advantage of the fact that our eyes don't pick out errors in high frequency components as well as we do low frequency.

About the only claim this patent that's similar to JPEG is the Run Length Encoding. But that is covered by prior art that goes back forever.


17 posted on 07/18/2002 7:42:33 PM PDT by Djarum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson