April 25, 2004

• I don't understand this - how can you patent a pretty bloody simple algorithm. I did a module last semester about image compression, and wrote some rudimentary image compression routines that shrunk the file size down almost as well as jpgs do. Patenting something so simple seems to be against what patents are for, really. Its almost like patenting mx+c=y, and demanding that anyone who draws a straight line owes you money.
• Its almost like patenting mx+c=y, and demanding that anyone who draws a straight line owes you money. I guess you have not received the memo. That will be $5 please.
• i think you raise an interesting point, dng... exactly how nonobvious does a patent need to be? and what is the standard to determine nonobviousness? does it have to be nonobvious to everyone? most people? reasonable people? the jpeg/jfif methods of image compression may seem pretty obvious to us, but only because we are l337, obviously. and i assume that most people fall into the range of computer illiterate to adequately literate. on the other hand, didn't einstein patent e=mc^2? maybe he should've charged people for moving through space-time at variable rate...
• The real question is why stop at only 31 companies? Jpegs are used *almost* universally on the internet, so if this claim had any basis there would literally be no end to the c&d letters and lawsuits.
• *pats monkeyfilter-logo .gif lovingly*
• A little clarification: The patent issues with GIF and now apparently JPEG only apply to people using the algorithm in software. Users can use Photoshop to make all the GIFs and JPEGs they want, post them to the Internet, share them on P-to-P, email them to their moms and it's not a problem. The patent holder was license fees from the companies that make the software that uses the algorithms and it only makes sense to go after the big guys, which is why they stopped at 31 companies. I mean they can sue these guys all they want but they wouldn't be likely to get more than a couple bucks in milk money out of them. And...um... *cough*
• Mexican, the PNG is not ready for prime time. While extremely promising, the format's features have not been universally adopted - so what works in one browser/platform will not necessarily work in another. Nor was PNG intended as a replacement for the JPEG format, but the GIF. In terms of file size/Quality ratio (which is what I measure a format by when doing web development) The JPEG is the way to go with continuos tone graphics. The PNG is too big due to it's loss-less compression.
• My cough was more directed at tracicle's coddling of the MoFi gif. But as long as we're off topic, with lossy/loss-less differences aside, from what I understand there's nothing about the PNG format in and of itself that's not ready for prime time. What's missing is support in some web browsers and imaging software. This is a supply and demand issue. If tomorrow every bonehead with a web blog starts using PNG for the bulk of their images the next round of updates for IE will include improved/working PNG support.
• You are quite correct, the format itself is ready, just browsers are not. <sadbuttrue>I bet it would get adopted even faster if PRON adopted it as the de-facto format for nakedness.</sadbuttrue>
• browsers that go "png" and browsers that can mng (or jng!). not using one? don't have a plug-in? complain to your browser-maker-of-choice. personally i'd just be happy if friggin' quicktime would stop making itself be the default handler for .png images in browsers that can already natively .png just fine on their own. and yep, sick of people suddenly enforcing a patent that they've had on file for a long, long time. i think that, in the case of something as widespread as jpg, gif, linux, etc. there needs to be a limited time rule - there's no way any patent-holder could claim they were unaware of the use of such algorythms/code/etc. for this friggin' long, given how flooded the internet is with it. this crap ought to be tossed out of court for not paying attention to their own patents.