On Tue, 2007-05-22 at 15:42 -0700, Thomas Chung wrote: > On 5/22/07, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Basically, I have yet to see any indication that there are current, > > valid patents on jpeg so I don't understand why you think it does not > > qualify as a "patent-free format". > > It seems we're arguing for something we don't know for sure. > We all agree png is "patent-free format" but we do not know for sure > if there is still *potential* patent issue remaining with jpg. That's > what we're trying to avoid. Once again, I'm not lawyer so if you > believe jpg is "patent-free format" for sure, please be my guest. :) What I'm saying is that I haven't been able to find anything that claims there are any current patent problems with jpeg. Which means that jpeg is as "patent-free" as png -- ie I can also not find anything which claims that there's any patent problems with png. Bringing up a patent that is both expired and ruled invalid by the patent office and saying that is a reason to avoid a format is just wrong-headed. Should we not use SSL and GPG because they use algorithms which have expired patents? If you can point to any current claims that the format is patent encumbered then we have a reason to ban its use. Otherwise you're just spreading fear of something that doesn't exist to prevent the use of a free format. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
