IP: ISO to withdraw JPEG standard

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Nathan Cochrane <ncochrane () theage fairfax com au>
Organization: The Age newspaper
Reply-To: ncochrane () theage fairfax com au
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:05:40 +1000
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: ISO to withdraw JPEG standard

Hi Dave

How does one view the claims of a company aggressively pursuing
intellectual property claims when it is seemingly breaching copyright
laws by reproducing in whole articles published about it on its website?
I see no "reproduced with permission" disclosure on several print
stories scanned in at Forgent's press page:

http://www.forgentnetworks.com/company/press_room/in_the_news.shtml

eg:

Austin-American Statesman
Patented Potential - Struggling tech companies mine their intellectual
property for cash
http://www.forgentnetworks.com/company/press_room/AAS_07-08-02.pdf

CNBC's Morning Call with Ted David
http://www.forgentnetworks.com/company/press_room/NDA21086_01.mpeg

Network World
Forgent Creates Video Management Pack
http://www.forgentnetworks.com/company/press_room/Network_World_06-24-02.pdf

Investor's Business Daily
Forgent Forges Video Network As Demand For Conferencing Rises
http://www.forgentnetworks.com/company/press_room/IBD_07-05-02.pdf

etc

---

No more JPEGs - ISO to withdraw image standard
By Andrew Orlowski in London
Posted: 23/07/2002 at 16:39 GMT

The ISO standards body will take the unprecedented step of withdrawing
the JPEG image format as a formal standard if Forgent Networks, a small
Texan company, continues to demand royalties on a seventeen-year old patent.

...

According to Richard Clark, JPEG committee member and JPEG.org
webmaster, Forgent's royalty grab - coming after two decades of
royalty-free use - means that ISO is obliged to withdraw the specification.

"Under ISO terms, formally you can only have a standard you can
implement on free or RAND terms. "Reasonable and non discriminatory
(RAND) terms are typically published, and the same for everyone. It's
clear that Forgent's claims are not RAND. $15 million doesn't sound like
free to me, and Forgent is not publishing the terms of their licensing.

MORE
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26339.html


-- 

Nathan Cochrane
Deputy IT Editor
:Next:
The Age and Sydney Morning Herald
http://www.next.theage.com.au



****************************************************************************
*****
This email and any files transmitted with it may be legally privileged
and confidential.  If you are not the intended recipient of this email,
you must not disclose or use the information contained in it.  If you
have received this email in error, please notify us by return email and
permanently delete the document.
****************************************************************************
*****


------ End of Forwarded Message

For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/