Slashdot Mirror
Forgent and Microsoft Sue Each Other Over JPEG
goombah99 writes "CNET reports that the long running Forgent JPEG patent claim story has a new turn. Forgent Networks has filed a lawsuit against Microsoft, alleging the software giant infringed on its digital-image compression patent that serves as the technology behind JPEG. The suit comes in response to a suit Microsoft filed last week, asking the courts to find Forgent's patent unenforceable. '... despite Microsoft's recent inquiries about licensing the patent, they chose to file a lawsuit, leaving us no alternative but to assert infringement claims against it,' stated Richard Snyder, chief executive of Forgent. U.S. patent No. 4,698,672, relates to video image compression and transmission specifically and compression in general. The underlying technology is an amalgam of Cosine Transforms, Huffman coding, and odd details. Major corporations are respecting Forgent's claims: to date Forgent has collected about 100 million dollars in payments from computer and camera companies for this patent settling on suits with 31 companies. Past slashdot stories here, here and here. How might this impact Longhorn? Forgent has shown interest in selling it (to Compaq) so it's not unthinkable Microsoft could just buy it and own it."
I think Forgent is playing a SCO tactic here; I have looked at the original patent and conclude that it is not patenting JPEG. In more detail, anything that JPEG uses which is detailed in this patent was discovered by somone besides the "inventor" of this patent.
Forgent doesn't have a leg to stand on; as soon as this case hits the court room, this bogus patent will be declared invalid. The JPEG's group response to this nonsense patent.
The patent was filed in 1987.
A patent lasts 17 years so the patent is now expired.
This is not like the GIF situtation. What happened with GIF is that the lzv inventor patented his own invention. With JPEG, the patent Forgent has has nothing to do with JPEG, per se, except for the fact that the patent uses technology similiar to JPEG (DCTs, etc), all of which is technology invented before this particular Forgent patent.
JPEG is an open format, plain and simple. Everyone who invented it made it an open format.
Forgent does have a patent, but it is not for JPEG. It's for something else, and they're just playing the lawyer game to milk as much money from this patent as possible. It's too bad some companies caved in, giving these crooks money to hire more lawyers.
It says the primary purpose is to enable use of multiple JPEGs in an MNG which to me implies that it isn't going to be much different patent-wise.
The US of A signed TRIPS, so they have to let patents be valid for at least 20 years according to article 33.
The patent may have a life of up to 20 years. The rules to determine if the patent qualifies for a 20 year life or a 17 year life based on a filing from 1987 are too complex for me to figure out. All new patents filed in any TRIPS signatory nations have 20 year terms.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
No, JPEGs can't be replaced by PNGs because PNGs (and GIFs) are lossless, whereas JPEGs are purposely lossy in order to achieve much better typical compression than PNGs (or GIFs). What you want to replace JPEGs with is the open-source, patent-free DjVu.
In this case the patent is mainly about compression and transmission of video. So its the combination of things not just the Cosine Transform.
However a close reading of the patent claims shows that it also contains technology useful for still compression like jpeg. The fact that this is buried in the complex details may account for why it took so long for the assignee of the patent to get around to claiming it.
The interesting thing here is that Forgent is willing to sel the patent. It already tried to sell the patent to Compaq. So in theory microsoft could pull a coup here not by breaking the patent but by purchasing it and thereby owning Jpeg. The fact that it already produces a revenue stream sort of underlies that. I also know that I the mpeg compression algorithm may also be based on Fast Cosine Transforms. THere is weaker chance it could be used to claim ownership of mpeg.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
What a pathetic set of definitions.
GIF. Lossless, but limited to 8 bit colour pallette.
JPEG, can use lossy compression but true color.
PNG, non-lossy, can use various pallette sizes including true-colour with full alpha channel. Can use a variety of compression algorithms, many of which are superior to that used by GIF.
MNG. Friggen Google it. Who cares if it ain't well known - another patent war would be just push this spec needs.
Hell. This set of definitions ain't great either, but is more accurate than the gibberish you typed.
While it is true that trademarks must be actively defended, or risk being lost, a reason why Kleenex, Xerox and Coke are constantly defending theirs, Copyrights and Patents can be exercised at the holders whim. This reflects the different nature of the forms of intellectual property, since Trademarks are indefinite, but patents, and copyrights (in theory), are of limited durations. You may therefore choose only to exercise your patents against Microsoft, but you must defend your trademark against every mom & pop store, or risk losing it.
They used to be 17, but got extended (and grandfathered) to 20 when the US signed up for the GATT treaty.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
The basic rule actually pretty simple. The term is either 17 years from the issuance of the patent or 20 years from the filing date. Calculate both dates. Whichever is later is the patent term.
For patents filed after June 8, 1995, it's even simpler--20 years from the filing date. In the present case, the 20 year date is longer, so it will not expire until October 27, 2006.
The more complicated part is determining if the maintenance fees are paid and if the patent in question is a continuation.
How can they milk "decades old" technology when patents expire within 20 years?
Patent holders only get about 16 years of temporary monopoly in exchange for sharing full, detailed, and *ENABLING* description of their invention with the public (via patent publication if granted) because the patent approval process takes about 3-5 years.
Please understand that the goal of the patent system is to provide SUFFICIENT INCENTIVE to inventors to take substantial financial risks & personal sacrifices to solve tough problems and to fully disclose their solution with the public in exchange for a TEMPORARY (not decades long) monopoly.
Like anything else, this noble goal which is often effective, is exploited by scoundrels who try to abuse the system and lack of time patent examiners have to do their work.
---
Like patents, eliminating bugs in software makes more sense than abolishing all software in general.