Just to clarify.... On the adobe website at:
Adobe agrees to royalty free licensing of
for producing, consuming and interpreting PDF and
only for producing (not consuming or interpreting) PDF.
We know that for PDF 1.4 there are additional patents including but not limited
for such things as transparency, etc.
Now the question...... will all the patents necessary for PDF 1.4 also be
available on RF terms?
* Don Wright firstname.lastname@example.org *
* Member, IEEE SA Standards Board *
* Member, IEEE-ISTO Board of Directors *
* email@example.com / firstname.lastname@example.org *
* Director, Alliances and Standards *
* Lexmark International *
* 740 New Circle Rd C14/082-3 *
* Lexington, Ky 40550 *
* 859-825-4808 (phone) 603-963-8352 (fax) *
Scott Foshee <email@example.com> on 05/13/2002 12:47:16 PM
To: "McDonald, Ira" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "'Harry
cc: (bcc: Don Wright/Lex/Lexmark)
Subject: Adobe's response.......RE: IFX> TIFFFx
Sorry it took a while to get back to you. As you might expect, I
needed to perform some internal coordination.
1. Adobe strongly supports a PDF based solution to your problem.
This is a proven path to standardization. ISO TC130 has based
prepress standards on PDF. Others are in the works.
2. Adobe will not be able to provide the IEEE a license to use TIFF
that would be sufficient to base IEEE standards on the IETF's TIFF FX
specification. Adobe continues to maintain the position that the
IETF's use of Adobe TIFF is out of scope.
3. Adobe would be interested in trying to attend an upcoming meeting
to provide a tutorial on PDF and discuss how it might be applicable
to your problem.
Please let me know your thoughts on this.
At 2:10 PM -0700 5/10/02, McDonald, Ira wrote:
>I support PDF (as the single REQUIRED or even RECOMMENDED format).
>I'm interested in Ron's IPP-based proposal, but observe that just
>saying the client (sender) can always ask what the printer (receiver)
>supports in document formats does _not_ get the interoperability that
>comes from a REQUIRED (to implement, not to use) format like PDF.
>I suggested that we shift to PDF last year and I still think it's a
>good idea, although the apparent convenience of TIFFfx (simple for
>IFax and PSTN Fax interworking) has long diverted us. The serious
>intellectual property problems with TIFFfx don't seem to be going
>away in the forseeable future.
>- Ira McDonald
> High North Inc
>From: Harry Lewis [mailto:email@example.com]
>Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2002 6:38 PM
>Subject: Re: IFX> TIFFFx
>I would have no problem with PDF. Unless there is very strong support
>shown for that on the reflector, however, I am also interested in Ron's
>IBM Printing Systems
>"Gail Songer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Sent by: email@example.com
>05/09/2002 11:08 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: IFX> TIFFFx
>During the last meeting, we had a very long discussion regarding TIFF-FX,
>Adobe and IPPFax. We agreed that it was at least time to consider
>alternatives to TIFF-FX. We also wrote a note to Adobe explaining what we
>intended to do with TIFF-FX and asked for their comments. To date, we
>not heard back from them.
>Ron Bergman volunteered to draw up a proposal providing an IPP solution to
>identify the compression schemes used in the job. He has indicated that
>will have something ready for the Portland meeting. Another alternative
>proposed was to use PDF as the required PDL.
>I would like to get some feed back from the group. What do you think of
>a) Stick it out with TIFF-FX
>b) Use an IPP solution (or would prefer to wait until the proposal has
>c) Use PDF
>d) other (please specify)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 14 2002 - 17:13:02 EDT