Remix clone Hacker News

A patented format where Adobe standardized the exact syntax for each parameter, with mandatory and optional elements to be compliant, and (!) a patent license with some non-trivial implications which is also only valid if the implementation is compliant.

In a development environment, this format competes with an already-implemented proprietary RAW-format which already works and can be improved upon without involvement of a legal department or 3rd party.

▲

pbhjpbhj 11 days ago | parent | next [-]

In my personal opinion, considering a file format as something that is patentable is where you've (ie your country) has gone wrong here.

It doesn't seem to reward innovation, it seems to reward anti-competitive practices.

	▲	nomel 11 days ago \| parent [-]
		> it seems to reward anti-competitive practices. That is the intended purpose of a patent. From WIPO [1]: > The patent owner has the exclusive right to prevent or stop others from commercially exploiting the patented invention for a limited period within the country or region in which the patent was granted. In other words, patent protection means that the invention cannot be commercially made, used, distributed, imported or sold by others without the patent owner's consent. [1] https://www.wipo.int/en/web/patents

▲

dtagames 11 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This is not correct. Both the subhead of the article and the DNG format's Wikipedia Page state that DNG is open and not subject to IP licensing.

While having two file formats to deal with in software development definitely "competes" with the simplicity of just having one, patents and licensing aren't the reason they're not choosing Adobe DNG.

▲

rickdeckard 11 days ago | parent [-]

The fact that both your sources are NOT the actual DNG license text should be sufficient to humble yourself from "This is not correct" to at least a question.

--> Your information source is incomplete. Please refer to the license of DNG [0].

The patent rights are only granted:

1. When used to make compliant implementations to the specification,

2. Adobe has the right to license at no cost every method used to create this DNG from the manufacturer, and

3. Adobe reserves the right to revoke the rights "in the event that such licensee or its affiliates brings any patent action against Adobe or its affiliates related to the reading or writing of files that comply with the DNG Specification"

None of this is trivial to a large company.

First of all, it requires involvement of a legal department for clearance,

Second, you are in risk of violation of the patent as soon as you are not compliant to the specification,

Third, you may have to open every IP to Adobe at no charge which is required in order to create a DNG from your sensor (which can be a significant risk and burden if you develop your own sensor) and

Fourth, in case the aforementioned IP is repurposed by Adobe and you take legal action, your patent-license for DNG is revoked.

--> If you are a vendor with a working RAW implementation and all the necessary tools for it in place, it's hard to make a case on why you should go through all that just to implement another specification.

[0] https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/digital-negative.html#dng

▲

dtagames 11 days ago | parent [-]

None of this is terrifying and seems overblown. I read the patent grant you linked to. It makes sense that one would not grant the right to make incompatible versions. That would confuse the user. Also, the right of revocation only applies if the DNG implementor tries to sue Adobe. Why would they do that?

Occam's razor here suggests that the camera manufacturers' answers are correct, especially since they are all the same. DNG doesn't let them store what they want to and change it at will -- and this is true of any standardized file format and not true of any proprietary format.

▲

rickdeckard 11 days ago | parent | next [-]

> None of this is terrifying and seems overblown. I read the patent grant [..]

Considering that you entered this discussion instantly claiming that others are wrong without having even read the license in question makes this conversation rather..."open-ended"

> Also, the right of revocation only applies if the DNG implementor tries to sue Adobe. Why would they do that?

As I wrote above, Adobe reserves the right to use every patent that happens to be used to create this DNG from your design at no cost, and will revoke your license if you disagree i.e. with what they do with it.

> Occam's razor here suggests [..]

Or, as I suggested, it's simply hard to make a case in favor of developing and maintaining DNG with all that burden if you anyway have to support RAW

▲

dtagames 11 days ago | parent | next [-]

That's fair. It's certainly not "open source" in that way that term is usually used. I still think that's not the primary issue and that the manufacturers are being honest about their preference for proprietary formats. But I see that Adobe legal concerns hanging over their heads isn't an advantage, for sure.

▲

tecleandor 11 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Also...

> granted by Adobe to individuals and organizations that desire to develop, market, and/or distribute hardware and software that reads and/or writes image files compliant with the DNG Specification.

If I use it for something it's not images because I want to create a DNG file that's a DNG file and a Gameboy ROM at the same time. Or if I'm a security researcher testing non compliant files. Or if I'm not a great developer or haven't had enough time to make my library perfectly compliant with the specification... Will I be sued for breaking the license?

	▲	rickdeckard 11 days ago \| parent [-]
		The fatal scenario for a camera vendor would be to transition your customers to DNG over some years, then a dispute arises which causes Adobe to revoke your patent license, and suddenly all your past products are in violation of Adobe's DNG patent. You not only have to remove DNG-support on those products, but due to warranty-law in many countries have to provide an equivalent feature to the customer (--> develop a converter application again, but this time for products you already closed development for years ago). Alternative would be to settle with Adobe to spare the cost for all that. So Adobe has all the cards in this game. Now: Why bother transitioning your customers to DNG...?

▲

FireBeyond 11 days ago | parent | prev [-]

What? Number two would make most companies run the other way. “Whatever you use to create a DNG, secret sauce or algorithm or processing from your sensor data, Adobe can license” - you act like it’s no big deal but it’s often the closely guarded color science or such things.

You can argue that maybe those things shouldn’t be considered trade secrets or whatever. But there’s just a bit more to it than that.