[filmscanners] Re: JPEG2000 > Paul

["Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>]

I imagine what may be slowing things up is that there is now a claim by
some company that they own prior rights to the basics that jpeg is
structured upon.  Apparently, they have already successfully demanded
and received some huge chunks of change from some larger Japanese
digital camera companies (I believe Sony is one).  I'm talking about
many millions (of dollars, not Yen).

The Jpeg group is fighting this, and the fact that they took so long to
recognize or reveal the infringement is IMHO suspect, but obviously they
were able to prove it to enough corporations that money has been flowing.

If I can find the link I'll post it, but this was news several months ago.


Art

Paul D. DeRocco wrote:

> Most open standards documents cost money, but only to cover the costs of
> administering the standardization process. I bought the C++ standard when it
> came out--it was $85. A standard that needs to be licensed generally costs
> waaaay more than that, because the patent holder is trying to make money off
> it. Good examples of expensive ones are the CD recording standards, and the
> I2C serial interface (both of which I believe come from Philips).
>
> One thing that may be slowing up its acceptance is that it may be much
> harder to write the software to do it than the old JPEG.
>
> --
>
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com
>
>
>>From: Julian Robinson
>>
>>Which I guess is because it is a "for sale" standard, not free?!  I mean,
>>if it works, and if it were **freely** available, I assume that browsers
>>would incorporate it like a shot.
>>
>
>
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body