Forgent jpeg claim challenged
p2p news / p2pnet: PUBPAT (Public Patent Foundation) wants the US Patent and Trademark Office to revoke Compression Labs’ patent on the famous JPEG data compression format the company is "widely asserting against an international standard for the electronic sharing of photo-quality images".
PUBPAT says it’s submitted previously unseen prior art showing the patent, issued in 1987, "was not new and, as such, should be revoked".
Compression Labs (CLI) is using the ‘672 patent to, "harass anyone that implements the Joint Photographic Experts Group (’JPEG’) format," states PUBPAT’s Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of US Patent No. 4,698,672.
"CLI’s aggressive assertion of the ‘672 patent is causing substantial public harm by threatening this international standard on which the public relies."
The foundation says Forgent acquired Compression Labs in 1997 and began an aggressive campaign of asserting the ‘672 patent roughly a year and a half ago, a decade after the patent was originally issued, by filing infringement lawsuits against dozens of companies that offer the public products or services relating to electronic image creation or distribution.
"Despite having a fledgling software offering, the assertion of patents is Forgent Networks’ principal business activity," says PUBPAT.
"Forgent Networks is a classic example of the new and rapidly growing trend of patent holders that do nothing more than sue people who make products or services available to the public," adds PUBPAT executive director Dan Ravicher.
"Unfortunately, the patent system allows for such perverse behavior because it cares more about patent holders than it does the public."
Forgent last year sued 31 companies for infringement .
"Over the last two years, Forgent’s intellectual property business has generated approximately $90 million from licensing the ‘672 Patent to 30 different companies in Asia, Europe and the United States," it stated.
"Forgent has sought to reach agreements on numerous occasions with all these companies, but as of today, none of the defendants have chosen to license."
PUBPAT’s Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of US Patent No. 4,698,672 is here.
See:-
PUBPAT – PUBPAT CHALLENGES DATA COMPRESSION PATENT TO PROTECT JPEG FORMAT, November 16, 2005
sued 31 companies – JPEG: worth a 1000 words, April 24, 2005
November 18th, 2005 at 4:56 pm
Software patents are nothing more than a trap.
As a no longer active software developer I can only be glad I got out of the software development business. Too bad I went into the music (copyright) business, where the “copyright” situation is just as bad. If I only knew.
It is unthinkable that every idea one has for a software program has to be checked against existing patents in all countries that have been have software patents. A ridiculous proposition. Actually no has has the resources to so a software patent search without the inevitable result paying thousands of dollars: MAYBE YOUR IDEA HAS NOT BEEN PATENTED AND MAYBE THERE IS NO PRIOR ART AND MAYBE THE IDEA IS NOT OBVIOUS.
Before software patents started, the patent system had already reached a level of unmanageability because there were so many patents in existense in so many countries.
The big loosers here are then the small shop inventors and software developers that own no patents, do not have the financial muscle to do patent searches or to fight lawsuits and, because no patents are owned, have little possibilities of suing (and getting sick in the court system) others to break even.
The patent system, like the copyright system, is broken. And what better example than the jpeg patent. After so many years of use of a major technology, and the patent issues are unresolved!
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
November 18th, 2005 at 11:05 pm
“…the assertion of patents is Forgent Networks’ principal business activity,”
Patent cybersquatters. Leaches. Slime. Scum.
I hope their .jpg patent gets revolked and the companys they sued come after Forget (oh, I forgot the “n”…) and sue THEM out of exsistence.
November 19th, 2005 at 2:46 am
This sounds like the SCO vs IBM saga all over again.
November 19th, 2005 at 11:43 am
This can turn into another RIAA vs. the customers all over again, but far worse.
Imagine that the so clled jpg patent holder finds out who is sharing jpg images over the p2p net and decide make settlement offers of $5,000, using exactly the same RIAA extorsion strategy of “settle or we sue you”.
As it is we. about 100 percent of the people who have computers, could all be classified as jpg thieves if we have jpg files made by a camera that had no license from the jpg patent holder or use non licensed programs that view, edit, or create jpg images.
A good question is, are we all responsible to investaigate the patent licensing status of our cameras, our programs or the jpg images we download to insure that we are not vicarious (when one person is liable for the negligent actions of another) infringers?
Is this not the same situation as with music recordings? Are kids who download or share music or copy cds responsible for the impossible task of finding out the copyright laws and then check the copyright status before sharing or copying a music file?
I guess next we will be seeing FBI warnings all over: Copying JPG is theft, punishable with up to 5 years in jail.
The problem is that with music there are many non RIAA music options. With jpg there is no option if what your already digital camera produces produces are jpg images.
This is big. The potential is that everyone will be sent to jail.
RIAA vs. the customers is small stuff compared to this.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
November 19th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
1. Do not use your digital camera, at least to make jpg images.
2. Do not copy jpg images for friends. even if the camera that you used was licensend for producing jpg images, and the fact that your computer is capable of copying jpg images, none of this means that you are licensed to make additional jpg images.
3. If ou make computers, add a DMR so that jpg images cannot be reproduced. That way the courts cannot decide that you induced jpg patent infringement. Also revise all you ads and literature to make sure that you do not induce anyone to do criminal copying of jpf files.
4. If you make cameras add a warning to the instruction book: Copying jpg files may be illegal in some countries.
5. To sellers of digital cameras: Have a special sale to unload the jpg cameras before this thing explodes. You may not be able to sell them afterwards.
6. If you have a web page, remove all jpg images on the site. Do this immediately.
7. Do not send any jpg files to a photo lab. The lab could blackmail you or give your name to the jpg patent holder lawyers.
8. To all judges, legislators and lawyers: You are probably a thief if you have a digital camera and send jpg images to friends or use them at the office.
9. To the owner of the GIF patent: You started this by getting the GIF patent. You should change your name and move to another country before all hell breaks loose. Alternatively, apologize and renounce your GIF patent claim.
10. To all that did not care anything about the RIAA lawsuits to their customers and kept silence, it was a matter of time before the police state would get you too.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
November 19th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
1. If you manufacture scanners, add a label to the scanner with this warning: FBI Warning. The savings of JPG images in your computer may be illegal under patent laws in some countries.
2. If you make graphics software, assuming you have a license from the jpg patent holder, add a warnig that is dislayed each time a jpg image is to be saved: FBI Warning. The savings of JPG images in your computer may be illegal under patent laws in some countries. Proceed at your own legal risk.
3. If you make blank recordable media of any type, add a warning label on the product: FBI Warning. The savings of JPG images on this media may be illegal under patent laws in some countries. Save image files at your own legal risk.
4. If you are George Bush, the president, make sure that the web page of the White House and the Republican Party have no jpg images. The FBI may go after you, unless you get preferential treatment from the Justice Department or the jpg patent is a Republican.
5. If you are Fidel Castro, pass a law making jpg legal in Cuba. That way you rub your nose at Bush while increasing tourism, since the tourists can be sure that no jpg police raids will be made against tourists who travel with digital cameras.
6. To the United Nations. Move to another country. The U.S.A. is dangerous as a travel destination. We know that Ambassadors have diplomatic immunity and cannot be arrested for having a gpg image, or an mp3 file, but what about the secretaries that are from the hme countries of the ambassador? As you may know soon all luggage at the airports will be checked for stolen music and movie files.
7. To Kodak: 35mm photography film will come back. Do not shut down any more film producing facilities. If you are behind this all, you are a genius for developing the strategy for ending digital photography.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
November 19th, 2005 at 3:08 pm
1. If you are a patent lawyer, curse the day that software patents were approved by the “not know what they do” legislators, with your probable silence did. Yo may have to change profession now.
2. If you are a pharmaceutical companyy that is able to overcharge on price because of your patent monopoly, curse the day that software patents were approved by the “not know what they do” legislators, with your probable silence did. Yo may have to charge reasonable prices from now on. Your precious patent system has been destroyed beyond recognition.
3. If you were the Secretary of Commerce, under who the Patent Office is run, leave the country for messing up in a very fundamental way by recommending that software patents be allowed. You were warned by knowledgeable people but you protected the political investors that run the country instead.
Rafael Venegas
http://www.gvenegas