![The Courts The Courts](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/court_64.png)
![Government Government](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/government_64.png)
![Microsoft Microsoft](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/microsoft_64100.png)
![Media Media](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/media_64.png)
![The Internet The Internet](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/internet_64.png)
![News News](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/news_64.png)
Forgent and Microsoft Sue Each Other Over JPEG 296
goombah99 writes "CNET reports that the long running Forgent JPEG patent claim story has a new turn. Forgent Networks has filed a lawsuit against Microsoft, alleging the software giant infringed on its digital-image compression patent that serves as the technology behind JPEG. The suit comes in response to a suit Microsoft filed last week, asking the courts to find Forgent's patent unenforceable. '... despite Microsoft's recent inquiries about licensing the patent, they chose to file a lawsuit, leaving us no alternative but to assert infringement claims against it,' stated Richard Snyder, chief executive of Forgent. U.S. patent No. 4,698,672, relates to video image compression and transmission specifically and compression in general. The underlying technology is an amalgam of Cosine Transforms, Huffman coding, and odd details. Major corporations are respecting Forgent's claims: to date Forgent has collected about 100 million dollars in payments from computer and camera companies for this patent settling on suits with 31 companies. Past slashdot stories here, here and here. How might this impact Longhorn? Forgent has shown interest in selling it (to Compaq) so it's not unthinkable Microsoft could just buy it and own it."
My prediction.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My prediction.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If there is a big enough high profile case that displays the stupidity behind such patents, the USPTO may actually be forced to reconsider the way it handles patents.
Imagine - a big case that brings in all the big fellas into the picture fighting over something the judge rules to be too trivial or too basic.
Aww, who am I kidding. I should lay off the crack.
Editors Edited out key item in the post (Score:5, Informative)
In this case the patent is mainly about compression and transmission of video. So its the combination of things not just the Cosine Transform.
However a close reading of the patent claims shows that it also contains technology useful for still compression like jpeg. The fact that this is buried in the complex details may account for why it took so long for the assignee of the patent to get around to claiming it.
The interesting thing here is that Forgent is willing to sel the patent. It already tried to sell the patent to Compaq. So in theory microsoft could pull a coup here not by breaking the patent but by purchasing it and thereby owning Jpeg. The fact that it already produces a revenue stream sort of underlies that. I also know that I the mpeg compression algorithm may also be based on Fast Cosine Transforms. THere is weaker chance it could be used to claim ownership of mpeg.
Perhaps not patent abuse, but they're pretty late (Score:5, Interesting)
Some claim it was a submarine patent... well no, it wasn't. (Look up the definition of a submarine patent first)
However...
- Their patent was issued in October 1987
- Their patent went unenforced until July 2002
That's a 15 year gap.
I know that unlike trademarks, patents need not be enforced. But that's a change I would gladly see made.
So somebody asked what we can do to avoid these things. Unfortunately, as long as patents exist, I don't think we can avoid them.
What we -can- do is decide better how to deal with them.
I'm not one for completely ignoring patents altogether - they have their good uses, even in software.
But in cases such as these, I think that if a patent hasn't been enforced over a certain technology for over N years (I suggest 3), then I think the patent holder should be barred from making any claims to patent infringement.
I'm sure there's plenty of loopholes and problems with this, but the basic principle would be
- you still get to patent stuff
- people still need to respect that patent. So if you make a product and your patent search results in a hit, you still have to license the patent (if applicable)
- you still get to hold those who, somehow, missed your patent accountable for it within an N-year timeframe
- those who somehow missed your patent, and you somehow miss their technology or the realization that it infringes on your patent, for > N years won't suddenly be met with a patent lawsuit
-- which means that any invention that got wildly popular can't suddenly be milked for all its worth because a bunch of suits managed to twist patent interpretations enough to make it applicable to that invention
-- small companies won't be sued out of existance just for missing a patent > N years ago
-----
As for another user's question... what are open (lossy compression) alternatives ? There's plenty of 'open' alternatives. Problem is that there's a patent of some form behind every single one that I'm aware of. The JPEG thing, JPEG2000, Wavelets, Gradient Tesselation, Fractal..
I'm not sure if BTPC actually has any patents associated with it. However, the author claims not.
( http://www.intuac.com/userport/john/btpc5/index.h
-----
Finally.. I wonder what all this Forgent stuff will do, if anything, to the StuffIt guys; http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01
As they use, at least partially, a different compression (to get even smaller files).
If all this Forgent stuff doesn't apply to them, and Forgent gets to keep the patent business going, the Stuffit format may prove to be attractive to some companies as it would require minimal change in code/etc. (at least when compared to a completely different format)
patent enforcement and serendipity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:patent enforcement and serendipity (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you have the patent? Is it to produce such devices? Is it to extort money from others that come up with the same idea independently, simply because you patented it first? Are you working on a device to realize your ideas? The patent system is supposedly designed to protect inventors during an incubation period. This supposedly fosters in
Re:patent enforcement and serendipity (Score:2)
Why do you have the patent?
Because he invented something, and the one right granted by the original Constitution was his right to seek patent protection for disclosing it.
Is it to extort money from others that come up with the same idea independently, simply because you patented it first?
It sounds like you would deny this man his Consitutional right to a patent. There is a word for trampling the rights of an individual for the sake of the masses, of course.
If you file
More like copyprivilege and patent privilege (Score:2, Insightful)
It sounds like you would deny this man his Consitutional right to a patent.
Inventors do not have a constitutional right to get patents. Congress has only a constitutional power to grant patents to inventors. The way the copyright and patent clause is written implies that copyright and patent monopolies are a privilege, not a right on par with freedom of speech.
Re:patent enforcement and serendipity (Score:2)
Patents often increace the utility of a device (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:patent enforcement and serendipity (Score:2)
Of course, if you were a large corporation, it would be much easier for you to discover that your patent is being infringed *and* much easier for you to go to court.
Ain't it great how the patent system protects the little guy?
Re:Editors Edited out key item in the post (Score:2, Informative)
Note that Forgent has already racked up $100 million in extortion, err licensing, fees relating to this patent, and they believe that they're just getting started. I doubt they plan on selling the patent for less than a billion dollars.
Forgent is a classic patent enforcer - they have another patent related to PVRs, and they plan on using their JPEG warchest to finance that tax on consumer products.
http://news.com.com/Patent+litiga [com.com]
Re:Editors Edited out key item in the post (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not SCO? (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember, there was no PNG either until the GIF patents came to light, or OGG Vorbis until the MP3 patent problems started.
Compression is a patent minefield however, as the MP3, GIF, and now JPG situations show. You do your best to not use patented alogrithms, but a few years down the road someone finds some obscure patent they say applies. Vorbis and PNG might still run into this trouble, as might any other piece of software in the current climate.
In case you haven't noticed, software patents in their current form SUCK. Hard.
Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft could dump .JPG (and .GIF for that matter) in favor of .PNG and .MNG tomorrow without being the worse for it.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
(Not that I care in that instance, but if MS backs off using it, then would FF also have to handle licensing it?)
Or is this simply image file creation thats at stake?
Re:Why? (Score:5, Funny)
No, JPEG serves a purpose (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No, JPEG serves a purpose (Score:2)
http://www.libpng.org/pub/mng/spec/jng.html [libpng.org]
I have no idea if this spec infringes or not. It seems to allow significant variation in encoding though.
Re:No, JPEG serves a purpose (Score:2)
Re:No, JPEG serves a purpose (Score:5, Informative)
GIF. Lossless, but limited to 8 bit colour pallette.
JPEG, can use lossy compression but true color.
PNG, non-lossy, can use various pallette sizes including true-colour with full alpha channel. Can use a variety of compression algorithms, many of which are superior to that used by GIF.
MNG. Friggen Google it. Who cares if it ain't well known - another patent war would be just push this spec needs.
Hell. This set of definitions ain't great either, but is more accurate than the gibberish you typed.
Re:No, JPEG serves a purpose (Score:2)
> GIF. Lossless, but limited to 8 bit colour pallette.
No, no, no, no, no! Lies! All lies!
A GIF is not limited to an 8bit color palette in any way shape or form. Its the applications that make GIF's that limit it to 8bit.
http://phil.ipal.org/tc.html is proof that GIF can support more than a 8 bit palette. Its just that the generated image can exceed the point of a small file sized image.
In short: GIF can support more than 256 colour palette.
NeoThermic
Re:No, JPEG serves a purpose (Score:4, Funny)
Hey, that Googling was a great idea [google.com]! Miramar Mining was up 5.15% just Friday, putting it back over the dollar mark. I can only assume it's because they have a dog in this JPEG format patent fight.
Gotta read between the lines, folks. Man, I love me some
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
what? and bless an open file format, and set the example that the way to get out from under patents is to use free, open formats?
no way. MS would much rather own JPG.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and then everyone's digital cameras which compress pictures using JPEG can magically update their firmware to compress pictures using PNG.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
The same suggestion (and response) was repeatedly brought up in reverence to SCO and IBM.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)
Probably the only solution that the USPTO would like would be to shift more of the cost of getting a patent to the application phase so that they don't have to wait till the patent is aproved to get income from it. Of course that would create a larger barier for smaller inventers but should make people think twice before filing nonsense patents and also would make it more likely for more scrutiny to be applied to each patent that does come though.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
But I can share PNG files very easily and without big problems already now. File size is not such a big deal.
So it just needs a few apps to switch to this format - in the case of very bad news from Forgen
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
JPEG is an open format, plain and simple. Everyone who invented it made it an open format.
Forgent does have a patent, but it is not for JPEG. It's for something else, and they're just playing the lawyer game to milk as much money from this patent as possible. It's too bad some companies caved in, giving these crooks money to hire more lawyers.
Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Good post there Mr. AC! The problem with the system is that it should have been rejected by the USPTO instead of being issued in the first place. That would have saved the other suckers that paid Forgent off instead of wasting even more money in our broken court system. The question I got is when it is found to be invalid does Forgent have to pay the extortion money back to those pigeons? That would be the way to fix this
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
They can be sued for using patented technology without a license.
Hasn't happened yet, and it's probably not practical to do, but even users of a program need a license.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Sometimes I like to think that there is irony in the fact that a song called "Ironic" is not ironic. But it really isn't ironic. But is that lack of irony perhaps ironic? Not really. But...? It's quite a recursive problem, as far as I can see.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
I cannot for the life of me understand why companies choose to fight over patent-encumbered formats when unencumbered formats exist.
As other posters have noted there is no realistic patent-free JPEG replacement. It's simply a cost thing: Does it cost more or less to hire a bunch of lawyers than it does to switch to a new format?
I applaud M$ on this one. Patents in standards are evil and the fact that they chose to fight it rather than cave is good, both for them and for the community.
---
Scientific
Re:Why? (Score:2)
Microsoft could dump
Who in their right mind would replace JPG files (a lossy high photo compression format) with PNG (a lossless low photo compression format)?
That's like suggesting we replace MP3 with FLAC.
This looks like a SCO tactic (Score:5, Informative)
Forgent doesn't have a leg to stand on; as soon as this case hits the court room, this bogus patent will be declared invalid. The JPEG's group [jpeg.org] response to this nonsense patent.
Patenting file formats? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it the MS implimentation of saving the file that is at fault, or am I just wrong and the format itself is patented?
Re:Patenting file formats? (Score:5, Interesting)
Patenting a file format itself... well, it shouldn't be possible. but MS has done it, so in the US at least it demonstrably is.
Re:Patenting file formats? (Score:2)
Re:Patenting file formats? (Score:3, Interesting)
I hate to once again echo the Slashdot party line on this, but software patents are just BAD.
Re:Patenting file formats? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's easy for people who program software or are otherwise interested in the software ecosystem to see that software patents are a bad thing. The question is, how are they that different from patents in other industries?
The thing that everyone always mentions is how it's impossible to develop software without infringing on a patent. I agree. There are various other industries in which this is true as well, such as the biotechnology industry.
For example, let's take the polymerase chain reaction [wikipedia.org], a technique that is necessary to do anything in the biotechnology industry. A company holds a patent on the technique, and I'm not sure if the patent has expired yet. The reason why everyone in the industry needs to use PCR is simple: The industry has a specific lingua franca, DNA, on which every development must be built. There is almost always a "best" way to do something when it comes to biotechnology, because there is machinery inside living cells that you have to work with to get things done. If you can use, for example, an enzyme that a cell already uses to accomplish a task, that's probably going to be the best way to do that task, because building enzymes from scratch to perform a desired task is outside of our reach at this point. So once someone discovers this "best" way, everyone else is going to need it for things to progress.
This is similar to software in the sense that there is usually a best way to get something done. When it comes to algorithms, it's all math, so you definitely have a best way to do something.
We've witnessed how innovation has been stifled in the software industry due to patents, but I'm fairly sure it's happening in many other industries as well. When the founding fathers gave Congress the power to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries," a patent system was a good way of accomplishing that. Instead of focusing on the problem of software patents, we need to be discussing whether or not the patent system in its current for is actually promoting progress, and what changes need to be made to it to ensure that it does.
Re:Patenting file formats? (Score:2)
Because, unlike other industries where a patent covers an expression of an idea, in software development the patent is dangerously close to being the idea itself. There were things I came up with on my own in my bedroom at the age of 14, playing around on my Commodore 64, that probably co
Re:Patenting file formats? (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO, the only things that should be patentable now are the "pioneer patents" - everything else should be rejected. There should also be an easy way of overturning patents when it can reasonably be demonstrated that someone else independently came up with
You'd think Microsoft would be more innovative. (Score:5, Funny)
Selling to Compaq (Score:3, Interesting)
If Forgent was going to sell it to Compaq, wouldn't it just be selling it to HP? Or have I been incorrectly thinking all along about HP buying Compaq, when in fact HP only bought the computer portion of Compaq? I'll go Google for more info...
Just when does this patent expire? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Just when does this patent expire? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Just when does this patent expire? (Score:2)
And guess who gets richer? Not Microsoft nor Forgent. The freakin' lawyers. Yay!
Re:Just when does this patent expire? (Score:4, Interesting)
Nonetheless the Mickey Mouse copyright extension was upheld by the US supreme court.
Re:Just when does this patent expire? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just when does this patent expire? (Score:4, Informative)
The basic rule actually pretty simple. The term is either 17 years from the issuance of the patent or 20 years from the filing date. Calculate both dates. Whichever is later is the patent term.
For patents filed after June 8, 1995, it's even simpler--20 years from the filing date. In the present case, the 20 year date is longer, so it will not expire until October 27, 2006.
The more complicated part is determining if the maintenance fees are paid and if the patent in question is a continuation.
Re:Just when does this patent expire? (Score:5, Informative)
Its just another case file for them (Score:5, Funny)
It's not funny in reality though. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, in reality, this is what is happening today in hundreds or thousands of subject areas, and the end result is nothing short of terrifying: a whole nation's progress is at the mercy of clueless talkers, instead of the do'ers of society.
It doesn't take a genius to realize that this can't be good for the country's future.
Burn all JPEGS? (Score:4, Insightful)
And now the same is happening to JPEG.
What do you think is needed to avoid such 'submarine' patent attacks on established standards?
Re:Burn all JPEGS? (Score:3, Insightful)
Worse yet, there's no real replacement. The beuaty of JPEG is the same as MP3: It's a lossy, perceptual based
Patent war? (Score:4, Funny)
The Patent Expired in 2004 (Score:2, Informative)
A patent lasts 17 years so the patent is now expired.
Re:The Patent Expired in 2004 (Score:3, Informative)
Start the Revolution (Score:2)
The obligatory quote from Shakespeare's Henry VI is apt in the face of the insanely, litigious state of Corporate culture. "...kill all the lawyers.", and the system fails. The path seems to be grab whatever you can, lay claim via the USPTO, who seem ready to oblige. Then litigate and hold out for a buyout. SCO seems to be run by idiots, as they appear to be failing where all others succeed.
Re:Start the Revolution (Score:2)
Re:Start the Revolution (Score:2)
cheers
MS Vs Forgent (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:MS Vs Forgent (Score:2)
If you live by the sword. (Score:2)
Re:If you live by the sword. (Score:5, Interesting)
3 words (Score:2)
If the both patents are enforced, neither will make anything. Just loose money to the lawyers. I'm curious, is the bar association one of the groups lobbying for patents?
If Microsoft Loses, will IE finally do PNGs? (Score:4, Funny)
They lost the patent!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
05-22-2002 File Marked Found
02-25-2002 File Marked Lost
09-21-2001 Set Application Status
10-06-1987 Recordation of Patent Grant Mailed
07-13-1987 Issue Fee Payment Verified
Heres the link to the info block for the patent [uspto.gov].
I was originally looking for expiry information for this patent, but couldn't seem to find it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just go to JPEG 2000 (Score:3, Interesting)
It's getting to the point where you can only trust stuff that's over 21 years old.
Ulterior motives (Score:5, Interesting)
So why else?
One. The patent is truly unenforceable, and M$ is confident it can prove it in court.
Two. They want to set a precedent. If you fail to enforce a patent, and it (accidently) ends up in a standard that becomes pervasive. You can't be johnny come lately and start enforce it. Obviously if people knew the patent existed, they wouldn't have used it in JPEG, or companies like M$ would have only used JPEG if they were willing to pay the royalties. Additionally Forgent is charging royalties as if nobody has a choice (which they don't have now). If they had enforced the patent and asked for royalties 10-15 years ago it would be in limited use and no where near as valuable.
Re:Ulterior motives (Score:2)
I know this passes as interesting on Slashdot, and with a bar set this low, it truly is, but this challenging the validity of a patent is the first phase of any patent infringement suit. You're absolutely correct, but it's a little bewildering that this is informative. (It's not your fault; just an observation.)
Two. They want to set a precedent. If you fail to enforce a patent, and it (accidently) ends up in a standard
Use It or Lose It (Score:3, Interesting)
But this isn't about the GPL.
IANAL, but AFAIK about patents, copyrights, and tradmarks, you have to actively defend your rights or you lose them. That's why when these companies discover a patent in the back of some filing cabinet they bought at a bankruptcy auction, they immediately sue 500 infringers. It's not just for the money, but to establish that they are actively defending it.
What ticks me off is that someone who owns a patent, copyright, or tradmark can let it be trod upon, made part of universal standards, and essentially give up all rights to it. Then they go bankrupt, retire, get bought out, and a new party acquires their portfolio. That new party then runs out and sues everyone using this IP.
In cases like this, where the IP has been widely used, has become a standard, and no one has enforced the copyright/trademark/patent for over a decade, the patent should be declared null and void. A new owner shouldn't be able to crawl out from under a rock and start suing people.
But that would require common sense on the part of our politicians. And as we all know, few of them have any sense and the only time the word "common" is applied to them is when someone's calling them "common crooks."
- Greg
Re:Use It or Lose It (Score:3, Interesting)
There's sort of an exception to this in case law: if I notify a patent holder that I might plan to use their patent, and they don't respond to me within three years, I can go ahead and use it with limited damages. I may still get sued for future damages once they notice I'm infringing, but I can't g
Re:Use It or Lose It (Score:2)
"Defensive Patent" my a$$ (Score:4, Interesting)
IMHO, public remarks about a patent being defensive-only should be enforced strictly, that is, put a comment in the patent record that definitively marks this patent as defensive-only and not eligible for actively suing anyone, and which cannot be removed for the entire life of the patent or any extensions based on it.
from TFA (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like Microsoft is against the use of IP laws as bludgeoning instruments to make up for lack of competitiveness in the marketplace.
Shoe, meet the other foot. It will be very interesting to see how this develops. Can you picture MS as a crusader against IP abuse?
Me neither.
Re:from TFA (Score:2, Interesting)
They are no crusader, they only care about themselves.
Re:This shows .. (Score:3, Insightful)
They are patches. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They are patches. (Score:2)
I don't know who you're speaking for, but most of the OSS community doesn't want to do away with copyright. If there were no copyright, anyone could take OSS code, modify, and release the binary. If they keep the code secret, as many companies do today, there'd be no way to force it out of them. With copyright, we can force them to release the code if it is GPL-derived. Without copyright, anything you produce could be copied by someone else and claimed as their o
Re:They are patches. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They are patches. (Score:2)
Counter-example in two words: Richard Stallman
Free software in a world without copyright (Score:2)
You DO realize that the GPL and other Free licenses DEPEND on copyright in order to have any standing, right?
If you're referring to copyleft, which uses copyright to require a work to be distributed in a form suitable for modification, then consider that without copyright, everybody would have the right to make and distribute commented decompilations of computer programs that were distributed in executable form.
Re:This shows .. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This shows .. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This shows .. (Score:2)
Re:This shows .. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:JPEG 2000? Where is it? (Score:3, Interesting)