Slashdot Mirror
Forgent Squeezing Money Out Of JPEG, Other Patents
deman1985 writes "Forbes reports that Forgent Networks, Inc., developer of scheduling software and holder of a number of technology patents, has settled with both Adobe and Sony for JPEG patent infringement and is going after numerous others to collect their fair share of royalties. The company also plans to go after PVR companies, including TiVo Inc, and MP3 player makers for other various patents they claim to hold. Sounds like more fun in the courts for everyone!" We previously reported on Forgent's JPEG patent shenanigans back in April.
We're already seeing Pay to play games (MMORPGs) why do I get the feeling some company is going to get sick of patent wars like this and make a new image standard, get everyone onto it then slap on a 1p (2c) charge on each file saved just to screw over people for a few weeks untill the web-standard changes.
I like muppets.
This has me thinking about the patent game large companies play. Take IBM, Apple, Microsoft - all with gigantic patent portfolios, and products that use many of them (and probably many of those of the other companies too). When IBM infringes on an Apple patent, they get together, cross license patents under certain conditions, and go on their merry way.
This is all fine as a defense against a company that actually has a product. But take something like these smaller companies, who only own a patent portfolio, or perhaps one big patent altogether, and no products. They find that Adobe infringes on their patent and... Adobe have no recourse. No cross licensing to be done as the smaller company has no product. The smaller company may even be privately owned, so there's no chance of a simple cheap buyout.
While we're all looking at MS, Apple, IBM, Adobe etc and going "tsk! omg!" as they acquire yet another silly patent, they're not necessarily the ones who're going to be a pain in the butt about it, it's the smaller rogues like Forgent, or Acacia etc.
Last time I read up on this PNG is not suitable for photo realistic images. This is what JPEG does well - does anyone know of a good alternative?
----
As someone else already noted, PNG and JPEG cannot compare in their use or compression. JPEG's advantage has always been its ability to compress photographic (non computer generated, generally) images down to fractions of their bitmapped size. PNG is a lot like GIF in its design (to my knowledge and experience). It compresses certain things well, but JPEG is still the master of photographs, which is why this could affect the web slightly. There isn't yet a widespread open JPEG-like standard -- maybe there needs to be. Until then, I'm going to continue to use JPEGs because, well, I think this will all blow over just like every other ludicrous software patent we've seen.
"!"
If I could change patent law, I would do the following: Demand proof of damages.
Patents are designed to defend against inventions. If I patent something useful, but don't actually have an implementation, I'm using the system to stifle others, and not really giving anything back.
In order for something to be an invention, it needs to have an implementable form. Sure, I could patent something that I can't make, but if someone else comes along and figures it out independent of me, then I really shouldn't be able to sue them for having the same idea that I did, unless I actually built it.
So IF forgent claims to have a patent, their patent needs to have an implementation which would serve as a test of requiring the patent. Otherwise, it's just an idea without an implementation.
I could try and patent a perpetual motion machine, and might succeed, but if someone else succeeds in building one, they will have figured out the difficult detail that I didn't: how to break the laws of thermodynamics.
And in a completely unrelated note, XP SP2 just finished installing. Only took about 5 minutes. I guess it pre-downloaded today.
the past two years, the company has made about 90 percent of its revenue from patent negotiations, and its software has yet to get much of a foothold.
In its fiscal 2003, for instance, software sales were just 8 percent of the company's $53.9 million in sales.
These quotes say that $53.9 million in sales (which is consistent with what I find on Yahoo Financialcomes for 90% from patent negatiations, and 8% from software sales. Nowhere on the net can I find anything about where that other 2% comes from (they don't seem to do any consulting for instance).
Then there's these quotes:
Already, Forgent has reaped nearly $50 million by claiming that one of its patents covers JPEG, the popular standard for digital images.
Then there's Jenkens & Gilchrist, the Dallas-based law firm handling enforcement of the JPEG patent. Under a fee agreement, Jenkens receives 50 percent of the revenue from licensing the patent, plus some expenses. The law firm's take so far is an estimated $50 million.
The first one says Forgent made $50 million on jpeg patents so far. The last claims the lawyers get half, and that is also $50 million.
Not sure what I should think of a company that doesn't succeed in having it's numbers correctly communicated. I do know however that $50 million is peanuts on a global scale. Looking at Forgent' share price, the stock markets seem to agree with me.
I have a photographic memory for numbers. I know almost a hundred of them.
Check the site yourself, and try to find any pledge from them that the specifications for JPEG or JPEG2000 are safe to use.
Sadly both wavelet and fractal compression appears to be a minefiled, so a solution for free lossy image compression is yet to come.
On the other hand, I believe there are some nearly lossless algorithms not encumbered by patents. They might be the solution for the situation, as they provide much better compression than PNG while making only non-perceptible (really!) changes to the image.
Take a high resolution screenshot with any complexity
;-)
Sure - JPG is better for most photos - but sharp edges, text (including high resolution screenshots of text) and the like look much better under png (bit for bit).
Slightly offtopic, but noone seems to have mentioned Unisys yet - soon we may be seeing on GNU a page similar to this one: Why There Are No GIF files on GNU Web Pages
Soon we may need a burn all jpegs day
My pics.
When was that alledged patent filed? We may as well be patient and wait for it to expire, just like GIF, RSA etc...
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
I wrote and maintain an opensource JPEG implementation, so am pondering about potential consequences. Am no big corporation of course, so not likely to be targeted by the extorters, but still.. What would you recommend, given that:
1. I am not a U.S. citizen;
2. The project is hosted on a service under U.S. jurisdiction (SourceForge).
Would it suffice to migrate the project to a non-US service?
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG#Potential_patent _issues
The JPEG committee investigated the patent claims in 2002 and found that they were invalidated by prior art. Nevertheless, between 2002 and 2004 Forgent was able to obtain about $90 million by licensing their patent to some 30 companies. In April 2004 Forgent sued 31 other companies to enforce further license payments. In July of the same year, a consortium of 21 large computer companies filed a countersuit, with the goal of invalidating the patent.
I guess the prior art does not stand in court.
Remember the year 2000? They promised us flying cars. They delivered the PT Cruiser...
That chose a patented tech to be nominated to be a industry standards?
For those who can't use java translators, like me - from Latin Proverbs and locutions:
Pecunia non olet. (Vespasianus)
Money has no smell. Money doesn't stink.
With the aim of replenishing depleted state funds, Vespasianus introduced, among other things, a new tax on public lavatories. When objected to by his son Titus, Vespasianus held a coin collected under that tax law to his son's nose and asked him if it smelled.
-- IANAL, BIPOOTV
I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. :-)
No, I just took screenshots of six of my desktops. The .jpg of each averaged a third the size of the .png files. I tried to get a really bare desktop with almost nothing interesting on it, and the png then came out a little smaller. The key there is the phrase "with any complexity" which I took to mean with more than a window with a web browser on it, or a blank background with an xterm
The patent system could use a huge overhall, but I am not smart enought to figure out a solution for the whole thing.
One thing that might help though is to make it so a patent is lost if it isn't enforced, like trademarks I believe. This would at least get rid of this type of lawsuit where a company that doesn't even do anything with the patent comes in years later after others have independently put in the work to make it successful, and files lawsuits.
If the patent goes into widespread use for a long period of time without any enforcement, then I think the patent should become invalid.
My theory about these recent cases of a patent parasite starting out suing some big company, such as Disney, is that they approach the big company, offer them something in exchange for "licensing" their patent, just so they can say "these guys signed, so you little guys have no chance". Notice the terms of the agreement are always confidential, so for all we know the big company could have paid basically nothing for the license, and may even be collecting a fee so their name could be used in the patent campaign. But the little guys will pay right up, fearing a huge lawsuit that even a huge company couldn't seem to win.
The ex-Jenkens lawyers filed a counterclaim to recover millions of dollars in past and possibly future fees they say they're entitled to as the architects of Forgent's patent-licensing strategy.
So basically, these lawyers patented the business model of suing other companies for patent infringement and are now trying to collect royalties on Forgent collecting royalties from the JPEG patent. Follow that?
But it gets better:
Already, Forgent has reaped nearly $50 million...Jenkens receives 50 percent of the revenue from licensing the patent, plus some expenses. The law firm's take so far is an estimated $50 million.
So, let me get this straight:
So basically, they've made no profit on their first $50M in revenues, their lawyers own half of all their subsequent royalties, and their ex-law firm is suing them for whatever is left.
What can I say, but that I'm glad I don't own stock in Forgent.... They may have a patent portfolio, but they don't have a clue.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Isn't there some sort of statute of limitations on these patent issues? If not there should be. It seems to a popular activity for patent-holders lately to wait quietly by while others infringe on their patents. They wait until the company becomes big enough, then they bounce on the offenders like a little fat kid walking through the desert who sees a piece of chocolate cake.
That's what has bothered me from the beginning about SCO (I know it's not a patent issue here, but close enough). Why hadn't anyone said anything about Linux stealing System V code before? It's not like Linux is all that new. It appears that they just waited until someone with deep enough pockets was close enough to Linux that they could attack.
There should be a law enacted where if you know that someone is infringing on one of your patents, you have one or two years to litigate. After that point, your rights to litigation would be revoked. Now it would be difficult to prove prior knowledge of the infringement, but it's better than our current system.
Ok, this is just bull. Please point to the JPEG's on a TiVo. I'll wait...
*ding*
There aren't any. All the icons (the balls, the star, network logos, the "blue wiener", etc.), and loopsets (i.e. slide shows like the little tivo guy in the upper left corner) are PNG formated images. I don't think Tivo would've changed to JPEG in the last few years. Everything else is an MPEG2 or raw graphics written onto the overlay (eg. the menu borders.) Fonts are standard true-type fonts -- non-compressed as I recall. (even "easily" replacable.)
[I don't expect anyone from Tivo, Inc. to step up to answer exactly how they do all the gfx.]
The patent claims the process of Huffman encoding and/or run-length encoding digital signals. The CCITT Group 3 Fax machine standard used run length encoding followed by Huffman encoding to compress the digital signals before transmission. It was issues in 1980, six years before the patent.
I don't understand why any company would capitulate when the prior art is quite as obvious as the digital fax machine. I'll wager that they've even used a fax machine in persuing their claims.