USPTO Rules Fogent JPEG Patent Invalid 240
fistfullast33l writes "Groklaw has reported that the USPTO has ruled the broadest claims of the JPEG Patent held by Fogent to be invalid. PUBPAT, the organization that requested the review, released the news earlier today. According to PJ, the ruling will be hard to overturn as the 'submitters knew about the prior art but failed to tell the USPTO about it.'"
Excellent timing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hard to overturn but...Not Enough! (Score:5, Interesting)
Does this mean that Linux can now support JPEG? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yeah, but is it enough? (Score:5, Interesting)
However PNG as good as JPEG, are you out of your damn mind? PNGs are MASSIVE, they aren't as big as RAW files, but that's it. They don't even approach JPEG sizes for photos.
For example, I have a photo here of a cute kitten loaded in Photoshop. According to PS, it's about 791k raw inside PS itself. If I tell it to save it as a PNG 24-bit, the sizes goes down to 317k. Good bit of compression, but still large for the web. However if I switch it over to JPEG compression and set it to use the maximum quality profile, it is only 69k and is subjectively the exact same quality on my monitor. Medium is the first level where there's noticable degradation, and it's down to 37k there. Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you meant using 8-bit palettized PNG (which is lossy since you lose colours) it's still 172k, over double the largest JPEG.
PNG is great for lots of things, but JPEG it ain't. You don't want to try using PNG for large pictures on the web, it'll screw over anyone on dialup. With sizes as much as 10x a JPEG file, it's just not feasable.
Re:Hard to overturn but... (Score:5, Interesting)