Page 160 - ITU Journal, ICT Discoveries, Volume 3, No. 1, June 2020 Special issue: The future of video and immersive media

ITU Journal: ICT Discoveries, Vol. 3(1), June 2020

2.3 JPEG patent policy
As previously mentioned, the informal JPEG decided from the very beginning that its patent policy should be
RF. In February 1989 (at the Livingstone, NJ, USA, JPEG meeting), the patent policy was refined:
• for the baseline mode – common to all JPEG implementations – JPEG must be RF;
• however, for optional components, either RF or RAND components, e.g. for arithmetic coding, are
allowed.
The reason is that the new JPEG algorithm had to compete with other already existing and very popular still
picture CCITT coding Recommendations, e.g. for facsimile (MH, MR, MMR), which were all RF.
In addition, in JPEG standardization, the majority of participating companies were telecommunication carriers
or from the telecom industry, both of whom were at that time generous with their IPRs in standards.
How was this possible so close to ITU (CCITT) and ISO (later JTC1)? Well, JPEG-1 development started in
summer 1986 and ended in 1992 to 1993; however, the technically stable standard had been finished in 1990.
At that time, ITU (then CCITT) and ISO (later JTC1) had no policy for common work and common text
standards, let alone common patent policy.
Certainly, the tenour of the patent policies of the SDOs were still different in 1986 to 1990 when JPEG was
developed and drafted. In ISO, the tenour was that patents and licences were only allowed in exceptional cases,
when no other way was possible to arrive at an International Standard. In the CCITT, Director T. Irmer was
just about to formulate a CCITT code of practice on patented items with a RAND-based patent policy regime.
However, in its first application, ITU-T H.261 [10], all participants and patent holders had an understanding
(though it was formally never documented) to keep that standard de facto licence fee free. With the later ISO
MPEG format, this policy practice completely changed. From the MPEG-1 standard onwards, licences on a
RAND basis were the normal practice; however, in JPEG, the desire and plan for an RF baseline in several
subsequent standards still remained. Nevertheless, the RAND-based patent policy regime of ISO, IEC and ITU
could not guarantee an RF baseline, so that it always remained an uncertain undertaking.
Information about possible patents was a persistent topic in the JPEG committee. More interactions concerned
information sharing (what experts had heard back from their companies’ IPR experts) than discussion about
individual patents, e.g. whether a patent really applied to the JPEG specification. In that spirit, Annex L became
an informal part of ITU-T T.81 | ISO/IEC 10918-1 [1],
“L.1 Introductory remarks
The user’s attention is called to the possibility that – for some of the coding processes specified in Annexes
F, G, H, and J – compliance with this Specification may require use of an invention covered by patent rights.
By publication of this Specification, no position is taken with respect to the validity of this claim or of any
patent rights in connection therewith. However, for each patent listed in this annex, the patent holder has
filed with the Information Technology Task Force (ITTF) and the Telecommunication Standardization
Bureau (TSB) a statement of willingness to grant a license under these rights on reasonable and non-
discriminatory terms and conditions to applicants desiring to obtain such a license.
The criteria for including patents in this annex are:
a) the patent has been identified by someone who is familiar with the technical fields relevant to this
Specification, and who believes use of the invention covered by the patent is required for implementation
of one or more of the coding processes specified in Annexes F, G, H, or J;
b) the patent-holder has written a letter to the ITTF and TSB, stating willingness to grant a license to
an unlimited number of applicants throughout the world under reasonable terms and conditions that are
demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination.
This list of patents shall be updated, if necessary, upon publication of any revisions to the Recommendation
| International Standard.”
This was unique at that time in a Recommendation | International Standard, but understandable, because at
that time the patent database of ITU-T and ISO/IEC simply did not yet exist.

138 © International Telecommunication Union, 2020