JPEG patent threat

[Paul F. Johnson]

Hi,

Just spotted this on groklaw

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040424232421417

Looks like someone is trying to play the same game as Compuserve did over
gifs a good few years back....

Oh well.

TTFN

Paul

 

[Whitecrest]

Just spotted this on groklaw
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040424232421417
Looks like someone is trying to play the same game as Compuserve did over
gifs a good few years back....

Did you read it? They DEMAND a trial by jury, because they know that a
judge would throw it out, but juries like to award a lot of money
against HUGE corporations.

You have to love the liberal legal system in the US.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Looks like someone is trying to play the same game as Compuserve did over
gifs a good few years back....

This saga's actually been going on for quite a while now. It just got
forgotten about when SCO started doing silly things.

The solution appears to be djvu. It was developed by AT&T and sold to
LizardTech who released the reference implementation under the GPL.

Not only that, but it is able to create ridiculously tiny files.

I use it here and there on my site. So far it requires a plugin though.

 

[Bill Unruh]

]On Sun, 25 Apr 2004 12:47:15 +0000, Paul F. Johnson wrote:

]> Looks like someone is trying to play the same game as Compuserve did over
]> gifs a good few years back....

]This saga's actually been going on for quite a while now. It just got
]forgotten about when SCO started doing silly things.

]The solution appears to be djvu. It was developed by AT&T and sold to
]LizardTech who released the reference implementation under the GPL.

And LizardTech is apparently engaging in patent grabs as well, according
to one of the notes on groklaw.
Releasing under GPL, which is a copyright license, means nothing as far
as patents are concerned.

]Not only that, but it is able to create ridiculously tiny files.

]I use it here and there on my site. So far it requires a plugin though.

 

[Stuart Halliday]

In message <pan.2004.04.25.12.47.12.156395@I-love-linux>

Hi,

Just spotted this on groklaw

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040424232421417

Looks like someone is trying to play the same game as Compuserve did over
gifs a good few years back....

This isn't exactly new News. They've been trying for several years now.
Thank goodness that JPEG patent runs out in 2006.

--
Stuart Halliday
The Acorn Cybervillage
http://acorn.cybervillage.co.uk/
Support us - http://www.cafepress.com/AcornCV/
Remove 'takeoutthisbit' to reply to my mail.

 

[Whitecrest]

This isn't exactly new News. They've been trying for several years now.
Thank goodness that JPEG patent runs out in 2006.

It reminds me of the guy that got a patent for a Y2K solution (I belive
he patented the process of adding 2000 to any number < 06 in the date)

He tried to sue IBM and Microsoft.

 

[Paul Thomas]

It reminds me of the guy that got a patent for a Y2K solution (I belive
he patented the process of adding 2000 to any number < 06 in the date)

He tried to sue IBM and Microsoft.

You mean that IBM hadn't patented the idea already? Sloppy of them


--
Paul Thomas
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for Business |
| Computer Consultants | http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+

 

[David Holden]

You mean that IBM hadn't patented the idea already? Sloppy of them

Actually M$ already hold the patent on all years over 1999. Anytime
now they're going to start suing people, and anyone born after the
start of Jan 2000 will have to pay a Licence Fee, though this will be
refunded on their birthday in the year 3000.

Luckily the relevant versions of DrawWorks were just called
'Millennium' not 'Bi-Millennium', otherwise we'd be in trouble ;-)

 

[Nick Maclaren]

|> In article <[email protected]>,
|> (e-mail address removed) says...
|> > > Just spotted this on groklaw
|> > > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040424232421417
|> > > Looks like someone is trying to play the same game as Compuserve did over
|> > > gifs a good few years back....
|> > This isn't exactly new News. They've been trying for several years now.
|> > Thank goodness that JPEG patent runs out in 2006.
|>
|> It reminds me of the guy that got a patent for a Y2K solution (I belive
|> he patented the process of adding 2000 to any number < 06 in the date)
|>
|> He tried to sue IBM and Microsoft.

Someone successfully patented run-length compression in the USA in
1990. There was a slight competition on comp.arch of how long ago
that was used; I couldn't get back before the 1960s from personal
observation, but someone else could to 1953. We were pretty certain
that it was had been used on electromechanical equipment long before
then - and, of course, it is ancient in written mathematics.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

 

[Richard Robinson]

|> In article <[email protected]>,
|> (e-mail address removed) says...
|> > > Just spotted this on groklaw
|> > > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040424232421417
|> > > Looks like someone is trying to play the same game as Compuserve did over
|> > > gifs a good few years back....
|> > This isn't exactly new News. They've been trying for several years now.
|> > Thank goodness that JPEG patent runs out in 2006.
|>
|> It reminds me of the guy that got a patent for a Y2K solution (I belive
|> he patented the process of adding 2000 to any number < 06 in the date)
|>
|> He tried to sue IBM and Microsoft.

Someone successfully patented run-length compression in the USA in
1990. There was a slight competition on comp.arch of how long ago
that was used; I couldn't get back before the 1960s from personal
observation, but someone else could to 1953. We were pretty certain
that it was had been used on electromechanical equipment long before
then - and, of course, it is ancient in written mathematics.

This was posted to uk.music.folk yesterday ...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/09/bofh_protecting_bodily_waste/

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Someone successfully patented run-length compression in the USA in
1990.

How do you spell "bottle"?

B, O, Double T, L, E.

There -- prior art.

 

[Tim Haynes]

How do you spell "bottle"?

B, O, Double T, L, E.

There -- prior art.

Nope. That's violation of the patent, right there. You need to demonstrate
that people were doing the same thing before the patent was granted

~Tim, being a git today.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

You need to demonstrate
that people were doing the same thing before the patent was granted

That being my implication.

 

[Ewan Mac Mahon]

Um - that's not compression; the RLE version is longer than the original


Ewan

 

[Martin Dann]

In message <[email protected]>

Um - that's not compression; the RLE version is longer than the original

1000000 is 1E6
1000000000 is 1E9

10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
is a googol

Can be seen in many scientific and mathematical books going back decades.

Martin.

 

[Stuart Halliday]

In message <[email protected]>

Nope. That's violation of the patent, right there. You need to demonstrate
that people were doing the same thing before the patent was granted

Amazing. Anyone was to do a group search in Google on run-length/etc. and
prior to 1990 you do come across a number of articles....

Here is one dated Aug 1989.....

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=run-length&hl=en&[email protected]

another...
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=run-length-
encoded+example&hl=en&selm=720%40eplrx7.UUCP

So Postscript users in 1989 were aware of it... )


--
Stuart Halliday
The Acorn Cybervillage
http://acorn.cybervillage.co.uk/
Support us - http://www.cafepress.com/AcornCV/
Remove 'takeoutthisbit' to reply to my mail.

 

[Toby A Inkster]

Um - that's not compression; the RLE version is longer than the original

I never claimed that my compression ratio was any good. (Though it would
be if I were trying to spell "Botttttttttttttttttttttttttttttle".)

 

[Nick Kew]

Nope. That's violation of the patent, right there. You need to demonstrate
that people were doing the same thing before the patent was granted

/me wonders if he has any relevant scraps of schoolbooks from the 1970s.

 

[Gary Beldon]

So Postscript users in 1989 were aware of it... )

Amiga IFF files used RLE back in ~1985. I've still got manuals prior to
1990 detailing the algorithms used.


--

 

[Steve Firth]

So Postscript users in 1989 were aware of it... )

Err I claim prior art.

From 1978 to 1981 I worked on computational biology (what now gets
called bioinformatics). There's a hell of a lot of similarity in
sequences of DNA so to cope with storage capacity of the PET, Sirius,
Apple IIe and even the Cyber that I was using it was necessary to pack
the data into as small a place as possible. So I used RLE only at the
time I didn't call it RLE becuase I hadn't seen any name recorded for
what I was doing.

I thought it was a neat trick, I didn't think it was patentable. In fact
it probably wasn't in the UK.