[MW Forums]

Forgent Networks Inc. has added Microsoft Corp. to the list of companies it has sued alleging infringement of a patent for a data compression technique it claims is used in the JPEG digital image standard. more

[DocRoss]

Let's see. JPEG compression has been around for how long? And Forgent claims a patent from 2002?? Something smells a bit fishy here.

[spdorsey]

PLEASE get PNG standardized and integrated into apps! Safari cannot print pages that use it correctly, and other apps are not using it in a standard fashion.
This could replace JPEG!
PLEASE!!!!
------------------S

[markflo]

Next thing you know, someone will have a patent on BREATHING! And it will be retroactive for all of human existence. Every time you take a breath, you'll have to pay a licensing fee. Then some new-school bio-engineer will come up with an open-source alternative to breathing and it will supported by all future generations!

[uchuugaka]

png is standardized!
it's application specific implementation is shaky at times.
PNG was designed to be a royalty free replacement primarily for GIF files.
it does sometimes compete with JPEG well in terms of file size, but not always.
in the case of this patent,
if adobe paid it, you might consider paying it.
that's one company who undertands Intellectual Property issues very well.
they enoforce theirs without being evil about it, and they respect others'
microsoft is making an MBA suit-guy decision, try not to pay a dime just because your a big company and wait it out.
as big as they are, the waiting game can be profitable in keeping money in the bank longer, just like insurance companies do.
"stalling tactic"

[chabig]

The patent application was filed in 1986 and the patent issued in 1987. Apparently, Forgent simply announced in 2002 that they were going to begin enforcing their patent rights. I don't fully understand what they're trying to do, though, because a 1987 patent would have expired in 2001.
Chris

[spdorsey]

Well, with the proliferation of broadband, bandwidth of websites is less of an issue every year. that does not mean that we need to start loading sites with heavier imagery, but it does make room for a format that has equal quality with only slightly larger file size - and no licensing issues.
----------------D

[NeoX]

In reply to:

---

I don't fully understand what they're trying to do, though, because a 1987 patent would have expired in 2001.

---

Good point. I forgot about this patents do indeed last for only 17 years. So what is the deal here? Something is not adding up. And they didn't create the JPEG standard, so why don't they go after the people that did? Could it be because there would be no money in it for them?
Just another Greedy self motivated loser company praying on others...
NeoX

[SeaFox]

In reply to:

---

Good point. I forgot about this patents do indeed last for only 17 years. So what is the deal here? Something is not adding up. And they didn't create the JPEG standard, so why don't they go after the people that did? Could it be because there would be no money in it for them?

---

Forgent is not the original holder of this patent. They purchased the rights to the IP in 2002, and realized they had a nice batch of companies using technology that so far had been free for usage. So they companies had products that depended on technology Forgent now owned.
I agree with Microsoft that the patent should be invalidated. The technology is hardly cutting edge now and has been in free use for so long it bad for the marketplace in general to maintain it. Not to mention how much it has been standardized on the web. Far too many products (hardware and software) rely on JPEG algorythms to catch all the past "offenders".

[Schneb]

In the legal system, if you do not fight for something, you are viewed as not caring a whit about your product. This is why Apple sends out the lawyers at any whiff of violation--not to mention Disney or Mattel. So all this whining will fall on deaf ears. If you cared so much about your product, you would have stood up and complained at the first violation of copyright. Use it or lose it.

[lhudd]

No, a 1987 patent would expire 17 years after the date of issuance, making expiration on 2004. Because you can sue for up to 6 years of past infringement, a suit filed today can reach back to 1999. that's 5 years of damages, etc you can claim. However, if they really did sit on the patent for over a decade before they filed suit, there should be reasonable grounds to support a laches defense.

[lhudd]

if it occurs in nature it's not patentable. Plus, since your parents and grandparents were presumably breathing, you'd likely be barred under 102(b) for known by the public more than 1 year prior to filing and 102(g) for not being the true inventor.
make a smartass comment.... get a smartass response.

[lhudd]

you can't invalidate a patent because it's not cutting edge NOW. Invalidation is at the time the invention was filed.

[sqlrob]

In reply to:

---

In the legal system, if you do not fight for something, you are viewed as not caring a whit about your product

---

That's trademark, not patent. With patents it doesn't matter.