Prior art, which makes it easy to do away with. I wouldn't worry about it. Any big company with an interest in JPEGs will bury them.
At 01:53 PM 7/19/2002 -0700, you wrote: >"Galen S Swint" writes: > >Actually, just to get people straight, PNG is not a good replacement for > >JPEG. JPEG techniques were specifically engineered for photographs. PNG > >was specifically targeted to replace GIF. I know of no good replace for > >JPEG right now - all the camera makers may just have to suck it up until > >either a) memory gets reaaaaal cheap and store images in a raw format, or > >b) the patent expires. > > Perhaps JPEG2000? (http://www.jpeg.org/JPEG2000.htm) Supposed to > compress >better while preserving more data (well, probably one or the other, but >still..). > Worst comes to worse, there's always MPEG I-frames. Some camera > chips >already perform MPEG compression for short movies, so it probably wouldn't >be too difficult to modify them to just encode a single frame as an I-frame. >Mpeg requires a royalty already, but since it's already been paid for... > > Also, hasn't JPEG been out for something like 15+ years? Isn't a > patent >only 17 years? Doesn't that mean they've gotten a patent awarded for >something that is either prior art or about to expire in a few years anyway? > >later, >patbob ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >- >This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, >go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to >visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
