Stop Microsoft

Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: dbl221 on 30 August 2002, 00:44

Title: More trouble with JPEG's
Post by: dbl221 on 30 August 2002, 00:44

The trouble with JPEG's (http://www.theregus.com/content/4/25711.html/http://www.theregus.com/content/4/25711.html)

I have been involved in medical diagnostic imaging my entire adult life.  As a medical readiation technologist I can tell you that proprietary image types such as DICOM are seriosly hampering the availability of interoperability amongst vendors.  The JPEG group needs to open the standard to allow truely open stanards.  Nothing else will do.  DICOM  is a joke.  ARRRGHH!

Title: More trouble with JPEG's
Post by: voidmain on 30 August 2002, 02:15

The JPEG group thought that is what they were doing. They didn't forsee some company claiming patent infringement on certain compression technologies used in the standard, even if the claims are unfounded.

Title: More trouble with JPEG's
Post by: beltorak0 on 30 August 2002, 07:07

unfortunatley the claims are not unfounded (even if they do get laughed out of court); the JPEG group (yeah yeah group group, whatever ever) wanted to use the floating point compression as the last stage, but since it was under copyright and royalties were charged for use, they settled on huffman / entropy encoding.  Floating point would have been much superior from what i've read.

-t.

Title: More trouble with JPEG's
Post by: voidmain on 30 August 2002, 07:29

It depends on who's side of the story you believe:
http://www.jpeg.org/newsrel1.html (http://www.jpeg.org/newsrel1.html)

Title: More trouble with JPEG's
Post by: beltorak0 on 31 August 2002, 03:37

Im not familiar with the 'prior art' thing.  how will that stop the collection of royalties?

-t.

Title: More trouble with JPEG's
Post by: DC on 31 August 2002, 20:06

If there is prior art, the patent is not valid, hence no royalties can be demanded for the now-no-longer-patented procedure.

Title: More trouble with JPEG's
Post by: beltorak0 on 1 September 2002, 10:23

so what constitutes prior art?  what are the requirements?

-t?