PUBPAT Makes Progress Against JPEG Patent 95
The Data Compression News Blog writes "The US Patent Office has granted the Public Patent Foundation's request for a reexamination of the patent
which Forgent Networks is reportedly using to harass anyone that implements the
widely used JPEG format. They have already been challenged by many, but PUBPAT
had the first concrete case with 'prior art'.
In its Order granting PUBPAT's request, the Patent Office found that PUBPAT
raised 'a substantial new question of patentability' regarding every claim of
the the '672 Patent."
Re:First Post (Score:3, Funny)
Re:stupid myspace (Score:1)
Re:stupid myspace (Score:1, Funny)
Re:offtopic, but you know what I'd like? (Score:1, Interesting)
Slashdot will not cater to one person (Score:2)
Re:offtopic, but you know what I'd like? (Score:1)
Re:offtopic, but you know what I'd like? (Score:3, Funny)
Do Yourself In?
You're not one of... those guys [darwinawards.com] , are you??
Re:offtopic, but you know what I'd like? (Score:2)
NOBODY is one of those guys... They're practically all just pure bullshit, made-up rumors, that never actually happened.
Could they be sued? succesfully? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Could they be sued? succesfully? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Could they be sued? succesfully? (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's say I had a company with reasonable funds (enough to support going to court). I have a patent that looks pretty solid so I ask Sony to pay me a license fee. Sony comes back and offers me a contract that says "we agree to pay this license fee, however, the full amount shall be refunded in the event that the patent is invalidated".
My company would just say "sorry, remove that invalidation clause or we'll sue you for patent infringement and win".
Re:Could they be sued? succesfully? (Score:2)
Re:Could they be sued? succesfully? (Score:1)
Re:Could they be sued? successfully? (Score:1)
But the patent system is there to protect inventors from invention theft, and there-by foster innovation. It works pretty well to foster greed don't you think? Maybe the patent system is an anachronism, that has lived past the end of its useful life?
Re:Could they be sued? succesfully? (Score:2)
Nice concept, but like the Blackberry c
Re:Could they be sued? succesfully? (Score:1)
{Big Co} decides that they were ripped off and decides to get "compensation"
{Big Co} sues {Patent Troll Co}
{Big Co} wins, even on appeal
Lawyers everywhere drop dead from heart attacks because now they have to make sure they have legitimate grounds for suing someone......
ahhhh... the bliss would almost be too much.
Re:Could they be sued? succesfully? (Score:2)
Yes, but as you said almost but not quite too much. I think I could stand it anyway.
--
Cheers, Gene
Re:Could they be sued? succesfully? (Score:1)
If the patent holder could be shown to have been working in bad faith (ie they knew the patent should not be valid, but were extorting the money anyway) then it is probably a different situation, but that would be a very difficult thing to prove.
Re:Could they be sued? succesfully? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Could they be sued? succesfully? (Score:4, Informative)
There does exist such a mechanism. A court can deem a party to be a "vexatious litigant" [wikipedia.org], at which point they have to get permission of a judge to file suit. On the other hand, these are usually used against people who represent themselves and file many, many frivilous suits.
Re:Could they be sued? succesfully? (Score:1)
Re:Could they be sued? succesfully? (Score:2)
Sure thing. Well, if they weren't, y'know, suing people they believed were violating the law by infringing their copyright.
Re:Could they be sued? succesfully? (Score:2)
So there won't be any regress.
Re:Could they be sued? succesfully? (Score:2)
Re:Could they be sued? succesfully? (Score:2)
Regress as a word exists in English, but it's not used like I thought (I'm a non native speaker obviously). All I wanted to say is that the contract might not cover the case that SCO's claims are not right, so there wouldn't be any ground for demanding money back in this scenario. I'm sorry for causing any deep thoug
Re:Could they be sued? succesfully? NO (Score:2)
Re:Could they be sued? succesfully? NO (Score:2)
Say, that's a nice patent ya got there. Shame if something were to... happen to it.
Re:Could they be sued? succesfully? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The Prior Art: (Score:5, Informative)
Is US Patent No. 4,541,012 to Tescher
Just a short blurb from the reexamination order Basically, Tescher preempts claims 1-11 of Chen and claims 12-46 of Chen's patent just repeat 1-11.
Re:The Prior Art: (Score:1)
Does this mean that the "Coding system for reducing redundancy", actually contains redundancy ?!
More funding for additional work at application (Score:4, Informative)
Re:More funding for additional work at application (Score:1)
Re:More funding for additional work at application (Score:5, Interesting)
If people that knew what they were talking about technically (and preferablly leaglly too) were involved in deciding if a patent was valid or not, we wouldnt see so many crappy patents. Enough people would be required to look at it such that people wouldnt be able to say "no, its not valid" because they have a vested interest in being able to use that stuff and not pay for it (also, a simple "no" wouldnt suffice, actual links to prior art or whatever else would need to be presented)
Also, introduce a clause in the rules that says that if a patent is found invalid (either in the initial investigation or later on by a court), the patent holder has to pay up to the PTO.
The idea of "you have to demonstrate your patent somehow" (e.g. for a patent on something like an encryption algorithim, you have to demonstrate working code for it) would also help.
Re:More funding for additional work at application (Score:1)
Pffft.
Re:More funding for additional work at application (Score:3, Interesting)
If people that knew what they were talking about technically (and preferablly leaglly too) were involved in deciding if a patent was valid or not, we wouldnt see so many crappy patents.
Too expensive. What would it cost to get good computer scientists doing something not-so-fun as examining patent applications?
Maybe make it part of a deal -- "get your PhD on a government scholarship, but spend part of yo
Re:More funding for additional work at application (Score:1)
Yes. There is very little reason that I can think of for this not to be a requirement. I don't think that it solves much, though -- my concern is not people filing impossible patents or patents that are very difficult for those people to implement, but simply taking areas of ideas and holding monopolies over them without then
Re:More funding for additional work at application (Score:2)
Wouldn't work, which is why it's not there. Build your own new MRI machine before patenting it? My patented code is for a Honeywell mainframe, you want me to lug one to the PO? No sir.
Re:More funding for additional work at application (Score:2)
"If people that knew what they were talking about technically (and preferably legally too) were involved in deciding if a patent was valid or not, we wouldnt see so many crappy patents."
I totally agree, this is the function the USPTO is intended to perform. Unfortunately, as technology as increased the ability of patent examiners to have comprehensive knowledge of the art has decreased, which results in crappy patents. The solution is obviously to allow the USPTO to keep more of the revenue it generat
Re:More funding for additional work at application (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, that was the idea when the USTPO was re-organized quite a few years ago, to make it self-supporting. But somehow, the fees charged never seem to wind up buying more reviewers with technical knowledge suitable for the job, or computers e
Re:More funding for additional work at application (Score:4, Interesting)
It's easy enough to sit around
In the modern world, I think that it is impractical to expect anyone, no matter how smart, to be able to find the weak spot in a patent in a mere four hours.
IMO, we would be better off going the other way. Make the initial patent application just a listing. Instead of writing Patent Pending, write Patent Requested. Then, when they try to use the patent, the challenge comes from the recipient. Also, patent infringement notices should all be sent *through* the patent office (for another fee). I.e. the workflow would be
File patent application.
Notify others that you feel that they are infringing.
The defendant (who is presumably in the field; otherwise how are they infringing) researches prior art and challenges the patent.
Both sides present their evidence to each other.
If neither has admitted the other is correct, they can then go to a review at the patent office. The loser of the review pays the review fees.
The fundamental problem with the current system is that it is not possible for a single person to perform such a review at the proper level of importance. Some of these patents are requesting multi-million dollar fees. Some would be happy with $10,000. How do you support both uses with a one size fits all fee?
If you are really committed to the idea of an up front application review, perhaps we should reconsider how patents can be used. E.g. what if a patent application also had to include the licensing fees? I.e. I might file a patent and say that users could pay either $10,000 for an unlimited license or $1 per use (with a cap of $10,000; i.e. the 10,001st use would be free). The applicant needs to set
1. The max fee per user ($10,000 in this example).
2. The fee per use ($1).
3. The max to be collected.
Every purchaser of the unlimited license would become a part owner of the remainder of the patent. Once the original patenter gets the max amount to be collected, all the licensers (to that point) now own the patent and may license it to others *up to* the amount that they themselves paid. Once they all have licensed the amount they have paid (or 14 years, whichever comes first), the patent expires.
Now, here's the kicker: base the patent application fee on the max to be collected amount. E.g. 5%. That will determine how much effort the patent office puts into researching the patent. As a result, people who can realistically expect their patent to be the next big thing will pay huge fees up front, will get lots of patent review, and will presumably make back the money in licensing. People who put in $5000 worth of work and are hoping for $10,000 in fees will pay much smaller application fees, get little patent review, but will not cost that much.
I would still prefer the delayed review. I think that it is fairer to all concerned and puts much less burden on the patent office. This is an example of an alternative.
Re:More funding for additional work at application (Score:1)
Now Linux can support JPEG! (Score:3, Interesting)
The difference (Score:5, Funny)
Jpegs make you blind
Re:The difference (Score:1)
But only indirectly and it may just be an old wives tale.
Re:The difference (Score:2)
Re:Now Linux can support JPEG! (Score:5, Informative)
Also, a lot more people have been sued for violating (or made to pay licence fees for) the MPEG patents than have been for this JPEG patent
Knowledge of patent encumberance. (Score:5, Informative)
Pondering... (Score:5, Insightful)
> patent-encumbered and that we should use and encourage others to use the apparently
> unencumbered (and higher quality, besides) Ogg Vorbis instead.
Yes, MPEG was always upfront that they were pooling patents and doing the RAND thing. But I have a question. When do they start expiring? I remember a VCD like tech (OS9-68K based, Phillips, brain cramp on the name now.... CDI?) in the late 1980's and VCD (MPEG1 video, MPEG1 layer 1 audio) itself not much later. MPEG1 layer 2 was the failed Phillips Compact Digital Cassette in what, 1992? Question is what is the date on the patents, especially of course on MPEG 1 layer 3 audio and MPEG2 video. AC3 audio is probably several years newer so the last part of DVD and HD-TV won't be public for a bit.
I'm thinking we need to find out and start a countdown, much like everyone did for RSA and the GIF patents.
JPEG expiring this year. (Score:3, Informative)
The date on the patent document says October 6, 1987. But I'm sure it's 20 years after filing, not processing.
It seems like a last ditch effort to scrounge for money. Because in 9 months in won't matter anymore.
If you get someone pregnant tonight, you could celebrate the birth of your child on the same day as JPEG becomes free (as in no-threats-of-lawsuits).
Re:Pondering... (Score:3, Informative)
MPEG != MP3
MPEG-1 video and audio (layer 1/2) patents have long since expired.
Another MPEG question (Score:2)
Thanks
Re:Now Linux can support JPEG! (Score:3, Informative)
PNG Anyone? (Score:1)
Hooray open source!
Even photos? (Score:2, Informative)
At 90% JPEG compression, (which is pretty high quality) you'll have a .jpg file less than half the size of a 24-bit PNG.
PNG is good for diagrams, and things with large patches of solid colour. It doesn't use the "eye-trickery" of JPEGs, so will never get as good a filesize.
File size is still important. Even though diskspace is cheap, pictures are getting bigger. The 7
Re:Even photos? (Score:1)
Re:Even photos? (Score:1)
you got me there. I don't know where 40MB came from. Pulled it out of somewhere i guess.
A random (low detail) photo taken with a 7.1MP camera (at 3072x2304 pixels), takes up about 20MB of memory loaded in photoshop (using 24bpp). This can be saved as a lossless PNG at 7.5MB, or as a high-quality JPEG (85 PS 'Save for Web' quality) at 2MB.
I'm not a photographer, and i realise that JPEG saving will decrease quality. And I know that an image should be compressed lossily only at the last step. There i
In other news: THERE IS A DATA COMPRESSION BLOG! (Score:1)
Prior Art demonstrated on ASCII (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You ins3nsitive cloD?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Deriving from that, JPEG usually produces the smaller images, especially with photos.
PNG allows for binary transparency and transparency via alpha channel, JPEG doesn't support transparency.
PNG supports color correction, JPEG doesn't.
PNG has many ways of compressing an image, JPEG has one. (This makes the use of PNG optimizers like OptiPNG [toronto.edu] a good idea - some programs tend to use dumb compression settings for PNG.)
JPEG is fully supported by most browsers, PNG is mostly supp
Re:You ins3nsitive cloD?! (Score:4, Informative)
JPEG images are "lossy" meaning that some data (image quality) is sacrificed for the sake of higher compression (smaller file size and thus higher download speeds). PNG's are "lossless", so while the integrity of the image is preserved perfectly, this results in a larger file size. It's a trade-off. For the sake of not alienating dial-up users, I personally prefer JPEG [darkicon.com] for displaying my artwork online, even though image quality takes a (moderate) hit in the end result compared to the original image.
One other advantage of JPEG over PNG is the near-uniform rendering of JPEG files across all known graphics-capable browsers, unlike the PNG format which renders quite differently from one browser to another, especially with regards to transparency alpha channels. For ex., Firefox renders transparency (alpha) data in a PNG correctly, while Internet Explorer completely ignores the alpha channel, and thus erroneously renders the image with no transparency at all. While the 8-bit (256-grayscale) transparency and transluscency of PNG files are far superior to the all-or-nothing per-pixel transparency of GIF images, the latter has far less universal support than the former, which unfortunately negates many of the PNG format's inherant advantages.
The prior art is a patent from one year earlier (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The prior art is a patent from one year earlier (Score:2)
For various reasons, many of the patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") actually contain no innovation. Such patents effectively allow private actors to recapture ideas that were previously in the public domain. PUBPAT protects the public domain from being recaptured in new patents. PUBPAT's primary tool for protecting the public domain is filing requests for re-examination with the PTO. A reexam request is the formal mechanism for asking the PTO to revoke an issued
Re:The prior art is a patent from one year earlier (Score:3, Interesting)
However, let me make this perfectly clear: IANAL (Especially not a patent lawyer).
--Jimmy
Maybe, innovation will start again (Score:2)
What is sorely missing, though, is the way to crop and do 90, 180, 270 degree rotation without decoding/encoding (and thus without additional loss of quality). The jpegtran [hp.com] part of the free JPEG-distribution can do this, but the library itself remains too low-level and all graphics