Slashdot Log In
Forgent Patent Troll Loses Again
Posted by
Zonk
on Sun Aug 12, 2007 02:27 PM
from the system-kinda-sorta-works dept.
from the system-kinda-sorta-works dept.
anagama writes "Forgent Networks, a patent troll, got the slap down by a TX jury in May when it invalidated a patent Forgent held regarding video teleconferencing over telephone lines, and today, its motion for a new trial against EchoStar was denied. In fact, the court awarded EchoStar $90k in costs. Forgent probably isn't crying that much though, it already extorted $28m from other defendants. Some of you may recall that Forgent made a business out of cheating companies for jpeg use — till their patent was largely invalidated on that front as well."
Related Stories
[+]
USPTO Rules Fogent JPEG Patent Invalid 240 comments
fistfullast33l writes "Groklaw has reported that the USPTO has ruled the broadest claims of the JPEG Patent held by Fogent to be invalid. PUBPAT, the organization that requested the review, released the news earlier today. According to PJ, the ruling will be hard to overturn as the 'submitters knew about the prior art but failed to tell the USPTO about it.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Patent reform (Score:5, Insightful)
However there is obviously some need for reform. If I were starting a business today I would be sure to base it in somewhere like China and register my patents in the US in order to minimise my likely exposure while maximising my potential gain. So what could be done?
Almost the scariest aspect of the patent system is not the actual law but the consequences of the threat of the law. If you are perceived to be infringing your case could be hugely expensive and very protracted - and justice delayed is justice denied. Being right isn't going to be much help if I go bankrupt before I win! Unless you are a huge company you are essentially screwed by a lawsuit. With the intent of keeping the system essentially fair it would seem to be wise to:
By lowering the cost of patent litigation the risk would be reduced - and we wouldn't have to wait so long or force so many people to pay protection money in the course of business.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Too many patents mean that there isn't enough resources to check each one as well as would be desired, but for the sm
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When a person or business files a patent application with the Patent Office, they pay a filing fee. If the Patent Office can find prior art documentation that causes them to reject the patent, the filer agrees to pay them an additional "sorry to have wasted your time" fee. [To avoid the Patent Office rejecting every application they receive, they should be required to file documentation. including exp
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't care whether it can be logically demonstrated. It's been around for quite a while, so the question isn't "logically, should this work", but rather "has this been observed to *actually* work". And I kinda get the impression that the answer to that is "it depends" and "somewhat, but
Re: Patent reform (Score:3, Informative)
Links to lots of insightful analysis on this question have recently been posted here [slashdot.org].
Re:Patent reform (Score:5, Interesting)
The patent system was originally an alternative to the guilds, who would keep the important knowledge of their trade a secret from those who wished to compete. Not only was the knowledge at risk of being lost over time, but the guilds actively worked to prevent non-guild members from competing in their trade. So now, we have government-granted temporary monopolies as an incentive to share these secrets.
The problem is, the "secrets" going into the patent system these days are about as useful to someone skilled in the art as a list of ingredients on a box of food is to a chef. They are purposefully written in an obfuscated manner. One never hears of someone poring over prior patents for enlightenment - in fact, company lawyers often recommend to their employees never to research patents because then they would be knowingly infringing on anything they stumbled upon.
I believe there are more powerful mechanisms at work that would prevent the reformation of a guild system today if the patent system disappeared. For starters, employees switch jobs much more regularly. Legal limits to non-compete contracts would be effective in keeping this mechanism in place. The Internet has promoted a worldwide culture of knowledge-sharing. Corporate secrets are regularly and anonymously leaked to the public.
So in my mind the question is not whether patents are necessary to protect knowledge sharing. The question is whether the incentive to innovate would remain, and whether that incentive is truly tied to money. I am increasingly dubious.
Parent
Go right past patent reform to abolishment (Score:2)
It's good to see a patent troll lose. But nice though such victories are, it clouds the issue. It raises people's hope that the patent and court systems really can work, and all that is needed is a bit more reform. Cue the various bandaid sorts of suggestions, such as shortening patent lengths, being more careful about granting patents, and whatever. Possibly the best of those solutions is eliminating the patenting of software.
I remained convinced that the entire idea of "Intellectual Property" is bro
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
the limits didn't use to be insane on copyrights, either. They were originally fourteen years. I would have no object to copyright at that point: most every NES game, all 80s music, and every book written up to today's date in 1993 would be legally public domain.
Give it time for some chode to get patents made engineer's life plus ninety-nine years...
Re:Patent reform (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Patent reform (Score:4, Insightful)
That way they don't end up denying the little guy because they didn't all 17-million forms properly filled out in ancient Sumerian on rice paper, with lines numbered in cuneiform (or rather in Roman numerals depending on what your local court prefers)
Its this "protect the little guy" thing that groups like this take advantage of, since they say "Hey, we're little guys.. and they're trying to take advantage of us"
Parent
Watch what happens... (Score:5, Funny)
We've secretly replaced their expensive patents with useless Forgent crystals. Let's see if they notice.
[Judge, Cringing]
Ack! I don't like the taste of this one bit - your claim is denied!
[Narrator, Whispering]
Well, there you have it - the legal system can still reject some kinds of landgrabs, when they're wrapped in the form of a patent. We now return you to your regularly scheduled eminent domain rulings.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Ryan Fenton
Is is Forgent, or Fogent? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgent_Networks [wikipedia.org]
- no entries found for "fogent"
Please return to your regular routine!Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Already extorted? (Score:4, Insightful)
So with this patent invalidated couldn't the other defendants recover their $28m?
3 strikes and your out... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Will this be defined on a case-by-case basis and at your sole discretion?
Re: (Score:2)
Which rejections would qualify under your plan?
Would a restriction order count?
What if the applicant successfully amends the claims?
What is a patent troll? (Score:2)
Can someone define this epithet?
Seeing it used to describe a company in an article as if were an unquestionable fact is just strange to me.
Here's a hypothetical:
Dr. X invents some ingenious gizmo and receives a patent from the PTO.
He has no manufacturing capability and wishes to license the patent to manufacturers rather than manufacture himself.
I'm a manufacturer of gizmos and I read his recently issued patent at uspto.gov.
I think there is profit in it, so
Either you really don't understand.... (Score:5, Informative)
The scenario you describe is NOTHING like what we see in real life. Dr. X in your situation is absolutely not a patent troll.
Now, Mr. Y on the other hand, he spends his time (with Mr Z, his IP lawyer) thinking up as many spurious and badly worded patents as possible. He tries to make them vague, but kinda new sounding. Occasionally he likes to throw in something someone else has already done.
Mr Z sends these off to the US patent office who take his money and grant his patents without researching what they mean or what they really cover.
Later, Y and Z take companies to court over products which may or may not infringe on these really badly worded patents. These companies are using things that are either standard, obvious or their own invention. A lot of them pay up to avoid court, especially given how rare it is for costs to be awarded to defendants.
This is exactly what Y and Z want, this is what makes Y and Z trolls. They haven't invented a thing, yet they try to extort money from those that do.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Let me ask you something: Why would anyone pay licensing royalties?
Answer:
A) Because its really fun to write checks
B) To avoid being sued for patent infringement.
A patent does not give you the right to collect royalties.
A patent gives you the right to sue for infringement.
Royalties are what companies pay to avoid being sued.
You obviously know nothing at all about patent law.
But your position is contra intellectual property rights, so all the little nerd
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you have a problem with transferability of patent rights?
Inventors should not be allowed to assign their patent rights?
OK. Interesting suggestion.
But you still haven't explained what makes someone a "patent troll".
Please give a definition, not an example.
Is it anyone who purchases patent rights from an inventor?
Or only a subset of these people? For instance, is it only those who purchase patent rights and fail to manufacture the patented invention?
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that your argument is against the PTO issuing invalid patents.
Which is a perfectly reasonable argument.
But until you see the patent at issue, how do you know whether it is invalid or not, without even reading it?
I guess what I don't understand is the rush to label anyone who sues as a "patent troll" without understanding the patent or the law..
Also, regarding the waiting to s