Remember the GIF Wars? Get ready for the JPEG War...

[Vin DSL]

Yet another good reason to switch to PNG format...

Forgent sues PC makers over JPEG patent claims
By Tom Krazit
IDG News Service, Boston Bureau
26-04-2004

Forgent Networks Inc. sued 31 companies Thursday for allegedly infringing on a patent for a data compression technique used in the JPEG standard for digital images.

The companies include Apple Computer Inc., Dell Inc., Eastman Kodak Co., Hewlett-Packard Co., IBM Corp., Macromedia Inc. and Xerox Corp. All were sued after Forgent was unable to negotiate a licensing agreement similar to one established with Sony Corp., said Michael Noonan, director of investor relations with Forgent.

JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group) files are used by a wide variety of hardware and software products to display digital images. The procedure used to compress digital images in order to create a JPEG file infringes on Forgent's patent for a similar method of digital image compression, the Austin, Texas, company alleged.

In 2002, Forgent announced it held this patent, and said it planned to seek licensing agreements from any company that sells products that compress or store digital images. Now that the company has decided to sue these 31 companies, it is seeking damages and an injunction prohibiting the companies from selling products with technology that infringes upon the patent, Noonan said.

The Independent JPEG Group (IJG) said in 2002 that Forgent's patent was related to a different type of compression technology than the one used by the JPEG standard. A representative from IJG could not immediately be reached for comment.

Sony paid Forgent a one-time fee of US$16 million in order to license the technology, Noonan said. Forgent has reached licensing agreements with over 30 companies and received $90 million in licensing revenue to this point, he said.

Microsoft Corp. was not part of this lawsuit, even though the Windows operating system and the Internet Explorer browser are two of the most prominent products that use JPEG technology. Forgent is in licensing discussions with Microsoft, but has not reached an agreement, Noonan said.

[Gwaihir]

Isn't it more then time to change that patent system?

-> It should not be possible to get a patent on something already in use / invented by others.

Right now I can claim a patent on inventing the wheel and go out and ask people money for their infringement. It gets to stand till some innocent third party bothers to go to court over it. In other words: the victims are supposed to proove that I haven't invented the wheel.. (which given the date on the patent won't be hard, but still.. you get the point, right?)

There needs to be some procedure that verifies if patent applications are indeed making sense. Probably an extra verification after patent has been granted (so that the marketabiity of "real patented things" isn't slowed down extra.)

-> It should not be possible for a patent holder to wait with claiming till something has incorporated as a broad standard.

In other words: there should be a rule that forces patent holders to - within reason - keep an eye out for violations of their patents and gives them a limited amount of time from the date that - within reason - they should have spotted the violation till they first claim it. Once that term has passed the patent holder has forfeited his rights.

How to make most and easiest money out of a software related idea nowadays :
a) patent it
b) DON'T be tempted to market it yourself!! WARNING: DON'T
c) Leak your idea into the world through as anonymous channels as possible. Hanging out on websites / forums / lists of open source projects and standards boards is recommended. Be sure to use a different nick and anynonymous (say hotmail) e-mail addy for each and stay fairly low profile.
d) Dissapear without trace once your idea catches on.. won't be hard as no one is looking for you or even recalls you first suggested it.
e) wait five years and see your idea flourish world wide
f) Cash in: send your patent to some ruthless law firm and offer them 20% of revenue. They'll take care of everything else.

Time investment needed to "market" your idea this crooked way: just a couple of hours, maybe a 100 in all?

Time investment needed to truly market your idea? A lot, not to mention the financial investment needed, of course. Also: don't expect to earn as much, as everyone will be ready to state "to expensive, we'll use something else" if you ask for payment

[Vin DSL]

Originally posted by Gwaihir
Isn't it more then time to change that patent system?

Perhaps, but the larger point is, the ppl that made PNG were smart enough to use the same compression algos used in GNU gzip, and this scheme was chosen specifically because it had been well researched and found to not conflict with any current patents.

To hell with JPEG. It's a lousy, lossy format at best. This just puts the icing on the cake...

[Connie]

Question. Why are images I save in Ping format about 5 times the size of a jpg image? Granted the quality may be a little better. For my purpose the quality of a jpg is adequate and has a smaller file size than a ping image.

Why should I worry about the war? I already have the software for jpg and gif. There is nothing that anybody can do to me. If Microsoft decides to pay the license fee that may cause the cost of their products to go up in the future. I'll worry about that when I decide to upgrade.

The other programs I have that support jpg have nothing to do with Microsoft. I will never update them.

I guess the botom line for the average user is who cares about the battle? Vin I know your not an average user but I have to reply as an average user.

[JonathanB]

Unfortunately, the browser with the biggest market share (Internet Explorer for Windows) has poor support for PNG files. Especially if you want use PNG files with alpha transparency.

I'm with you Connie. If own a program that saves files in JPG format, it is the responsibilty of the software maker to make sure that program doesn't violate copyright. It's not my responsibility.

My feeling on this law suit is it will get a lot of hype and press, but in the end it won't amount to anything at all (which I think is what happened to the GIF lawsuit).

[Spathiphyllum]

Originally posted by JonathanB - quotes in bold
If own a program that saves files in JPG format, it is the responsibilty of the software maker to make sure that program doesn't violate copyright. It's not my responsibility.

I'm afraid you'd have to be a patent attorney to claim this, and this could very well be challenged by the "patent holder". I think you'd be surprised at how creatively (well, maybe not) litigious and vengeful people can become when dollar signs start floating around. As a webmaster who displays creative content, you are responsible for what you produce and dispense. If a patent holder decides to sue you, you will be obligated to defend yourself whether you violated the patent or not. You really are at the mercy of the patent holder. Typically, the big fish of the industry get sued first (i.e. corporations) because the return on their legal dollar is much higher than dealing with individuals. The patent holder will decide the course of legal proceedings based on their expectations of a financial return and will proceed in their best interest.

My feeling on this law suit is it will get a lot of hype and press, but in the end it won't amount to anything at all (which I think is what happened to the GIF lawsuit).

You are probably right but it can be risky in the longterm. There is no way to predict the technology industry; consequently, sometimes it is better to proceed cautiously, as if you were a medical professional practicing defensive medicine. The GIF lawsuit was batted around for some time until the patent holder (Unisys) decided not to litigate and the patent ultimately (and very recently) expired. For a brief discussion and more than you wanted to know, see The GIF Controversy: A Software Developer's Perspective.

I started using PNG almost exclusively about 2 years ago knowing full well that this litigation might happen. Also, philosophically, I prefer open source because of its traditional approach to following universal standards. Is PNG perfect? No, but it is actively evolving and gains better support with time. This lawsuit threat may very well serve as the tipping point for universal support in web browsers. I guess it's up to Microsoft et. al. to decide whether its cheaper to license the JPEG algorithm or remove support for JPEG. I would prefer that corporations (read Microsoft) pay the license fee so that they won't co-opt PNG and castrate it like they did with JAVA. Also, selfishly, it cost shifts legal feduciary obligations from me to them.

Originally posted by clssam - quotes in bold
Why should I worry about the war? I already have the software for jpg and gif. There is nothing that anybody can do to me. If Microsoft decides to pay the license fee that may cause the cost of their products to go up in the future. I'll worry about that when I decide to upgrade.

As I stated previously, I wouldn't be too sure about claiming immunity from legal challenge. Would there be an uproar should the JPEG patent holder start suing for infringement? Absolutely, and that would work to your advantage as there is a momentum in the industry for using .jpg formats. But that does not guarantee that you may not be held liable for patent infringment should the "right" court get petitioned. There is what you think is right and then there is law... two very different animals where the law will mutilate you every time. I could see an example wherby an attorney would proclaim "any derivative works created from unlicensed software must be licensed or destroyed..." and have it withstand legal challenge. This is not out of the realm of possibilities.