That patent is completely irrelevant to JXL. JXL doesn't do anything described in the patent.
And in any case, I think the person you responded to is referring to non-web actors like Abode, who seem to like JXL.
And in any case, I think the person you responded to is referring to non-web actors like Abode, who seem to like JXL.
In the article I linked, the creator of ANS asserts that Microsoft's patent covers the variant used in JXL.
A Cloudinary lead says it doesn't but they're not a lawyer, and it's not exactly in their interest to say it does.
> And in any case, I think the person you responded to is referring to non-web actors like Abode, who seem to like JXL.
That is completely irrelevant to Chrome, why would Google change their mind on that basis?
Microsoft is a member of ISO. They're obligated to notify ISO if they have any relevant patents to new standards. The subcommittee that JPEG is part of is even chaired by a Microsoft employee, so it's not like they'd be unaware.
Duda seems to think that Microsoft's patent simply covers rANS in general, but this seems dubious. Not only would it cover a lot more than JXL, it would have shitloads of prior art. The patent seems to describe an improvement of rANS, which isn't used in JXL.
Further still, Microsoft has straight up said that the patent is free to use for any open codec.
> That is completely irrelevant to Chrome, why would Google change their mind on that basis?
WebP adoption was slowed, and is to some extent widely hated, because it for many years had zero support outside the web. Not only is JXL seeing faster than adoption outside the web than WebP, it's seeing faster adoption than AVIF. That seems relevant to me. And of course, web companies literally can't adopt it until at least one browser starts supporting it. Shopify already serves JXL when you enable the flag. Facebook wants to use it. Yet Chrome's devs claim that there is basically no ecosystem interest. It's pretty ridiculous.
https://encode.su/threads/3863-RANS-Microsoft-wins-data-enco...
This doesn't necessarily mean JPEG XL is patent-encumbered (the patent is still annoying, but not necessarily this way). It is recommended for ISO standards that relevant patents should be disclosed and available on a non-discriminatory basis [1], and while patent holders can ignore this recommendation they generally have no reason to do so. In the case of JPEG XL only Google [2] and Cloudinary [3] filed patent declarations, so Microsoft is reasonably thought to have no patents relevant to JPEG XL.
[1] https://www.iso.org/iso-standards-and-patents.html
[2] https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3770...
[3] https://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/2122/3770...