Quantcast
You are not logged in, click here to log in.
17 Replies Last post: Apr 23, 2005 9:39 AM by lhudd   1 2 Previous Next
Click to view MW Forums's profile New Member 12,220 posts since
Aug 2, 2004
Reply

Apr 22, 2005 7:20 AM

Forgent sues Microsoft over JPEG patent

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
Reply
Click to view DocRoss's profile New Member 16 posts since
Aug 30, 2004
1. Apr 22, 2005 7:44 AM in response to: MW Forums
Re: Forgent sues Microsoft over JPEG patent
Let's see. JPEG compression has been around for how long? And Forgent claims a patent from 2002?? Something smells a bit fishy here.
Click to view spdorsey's profile New Member 42 posts since
Apr 18, 2005
2. Apr 22, 2005 8:06 AM in response to: MW Forums
Let's get PNG standardized!
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
Click to view markflo's profile New Member 9 posts since
Apr 22, 2005
3. Apr 22, 2005 8:11 AM in response to: MW Forums
Re: Forgent sues Microsoft over JPEG patent
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!
Click to view uchuugaka's profile Member 472 posts since
Apr 12, 2005
4. Apr 22, 2005 8:27 AM in response to: spdorsey
Re: Let's get PNG standardized!
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"
Click to view chabig's profile New Member 22 posts since
Jan 31, 2004
5. Apr 22, 2005 8:30 AM in response to: DocRoss
Re: Forgent sues Microsoft over JPEG patent
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
Click to view spdorsey's profile New Member 42 posts since
Apr 18, 2005
6. Apr 22, 2005 8:37 AM in response to: uchuugaka
Re: Let's get PNG standardized!
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
Click to view NeoX's profile Member 483 posts since
Aug 27, 2004
7. Apr 22, 2005 8:58 AM in response to: chabig
Re: Forgent sues Microsoft over JPEG patent
In reply to:<hr />
I don't fully understand what they're trying to do, though, because a 1987 patent would have expired in 2001.

<hr />


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
Click to view SeaFox's profile Member 956 posts since
Apr 28, 2001
8. Apr 22, 2005 9:54 AM in response to: NeoX
Re: Forgent sues Microsoft over JPEG patent
In reply to:<hr />
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?


<hr />


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".
Click to view Schneb's profile Old Hand 1,727 posts since
Dec 10, 2002
9. Apr 22, 2005 10:17 AM in response to: SeaFox
Re: Forgent sues Microsoft over JPEG patent
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.
Click to view lhudd's profile Member 361 posts since
Nov 16, 2004
10. Apr 22, 2005 10:58 AM in response to: chabig
Re: Forgent sues Microsoft over JPEG patent
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.
Click to view lhudd's profile Member 361 posts since
Nov 16, 2004
11. Apr 22, 2005 11:00 AM in response to: markflo
Re: Forgent sues Microsoft over JPEG patent
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.
Click to view lhudd's profile Member 361 posts since
Nov 16, 2004
12. Apr 22, 2005 11:03 AM in response to: SeaFox
Re: Forgent sues Microsoft over JPEG patent
you can't invalidate a patent because it's not cutting edge NOW. Invalidation is at the time the invention was filed.
Click to view sqlrob's profile New Member 108 posts since
Mar 12, 2005
13. Apr 22, 2005 11:23 AM in response to: Schneb
Re: Forgent sues Microsoft over JPEG patent
In reply to:<hr />
In the legal system, if you do not fight for something, you are viewed as not caring a whit about your product

<hr />


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

Click to view SeaFox's profile Member 956 posts since
Apr 28, 2001
14. Apr 22, 2005 11:44 AM in response to: lhudd
Re: Forgent sues Microsoft over JPEG patent
In reply to:<hr />
you can't invalidate a patent because it's not cutting edge NOW. Invalidation is at the time the invention was filed.

<hr />


True. But licencing fees weren't sought for patent use by the original holders (for the precise reason they wanted it to be freely useable), so to have the current holders try to seek infringment damages now should not be allowed. The last holder didn't defend it, so the patent should not be recognised. Which I guess means Forgent spent X million dollars (I forgot the figure) for nothing.