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."

Comments

Re:Why?

[Synbiosis]

Microsoft could dump .JPG (and .GIF for that matter) in favor of .PNG and .MNG tomorrow without being the worse for it.

Yes, and then everyone's digital cameras which compress pictures using JPEG can magically update their firmware to compress pictures using PNG.

Re:Why?

[t_allardyce]

PNG/MNG use lossless compression which generally means they don't get as high compression ratios as JPEG. Not to mention that JPEG is pretty much standard on the web, how could microsoft just dump it? The way I see it this whole thing is ridiculous, I was taught JPEG (DCT, Huffman etc) at university, its practically up there with Fourier and basic maths, Forgent are just milking a decades old 'technology' and the poor cow is running dry.

This looks like a SCO tactic

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Patenting file formats?

[LiquidCoooled]

I thought you couldn't patent a format?

Is it the MS implimentation of saving the file that is at fault, or am I just wrong and the format itself is patented?

You'd think Microsoft would be more innovative.

[crottsma]

A lawsuit? Stupid. Microsoft should employ the same technique I use at BestBuy. Just purchase the license, use it for a while, and then return it claiming that the salesman scratched it.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Just when does this patent expire?

[Trepalium]

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.

They lost the patent!!!

[LiquidCoooled]

I just been digging through the USPTO records about this patent (its intruiging in a sadistic way), and I discovered that the physical patent file itself went missing!

05-22-2002 File Marked Found
02-25-2002 File Marked Lost
09-21-2001 Set Application Status
10-06-1987 Recordation of Patent Grant Mailed
07-13-1987 Issue Fee Payment Verified

Heres the link to the info block for the patent.

I was originally looking for expiry information for this patent, but couldn't seem to find it.

Re:My prediction....

[metlin]

Hopefully, that will be a good thing.

If there is a big enough high profile case that displays the stupidity behind such patents, the USPTO may actually be forced to reconsider the way it handles patents.

Imagine - a big case that brings in all the big fellas into the picture fighting over something the judge rules to be too trivial or too basic.

Aww, who am I kidding. I should lay off the crack.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's some more information, which I got from The web archive (It's not Karma whoring when your Mr. AC):

Content of the Patent US 4698672 Relevant to JPEG

The patent refers mostly to video compression. Some claims can be applied to still image compression as well. The central claims are formulated in Claim 1, 13, 38 and 39.

These describe a well adapted code book used in the encoding process (Claims 1 and 13) and the decoding of the codestream (Claims 38 and 39), followed by entropy encoding. The key point of this algorithm is the use of so called "runs", sequences of identical symbols, encoded by the number and the value of the symbols in the run.

Does JPEG use methods claimed by US-Patent 4698672?

Despite differences in nomenclature and small deviations of the described algorithms the answer has to be in the affirmative, as both algorithms are close enough in details and in general. The similarities are as follows:

1. The data stream is segmentated into runs of the most common symbol.
2. Each run is characterized by a pair of symbols (n, a) with n indicating the length of the run and a information about the next symbol delimiting the run. This extends all the way to the last symbol.
3. The remaining information is encoded using a special codebook.
4. Runs of the most common symbol that reach all the way to the end of the block are encoded using the special EOB symbol.
5. The codestream rewritten using the codebook is finally Huffman entropy encoded.

The algorithm used in JPEG is very close to the technology described in Claims 1,13, 38 and 39. The two methods of encoding are not identical but similar to the point of algorithmic equality.

Can "prior art" be proven in the case of Patent?

The main ideas, methods and numerical experiments of the key parts of the invention, especially Claim 13 concerning the codebook content, had already been published in several articles before the registration of the patent.:

1. H. Meyr, H.G. Rosdolsky and T. Huang, "Optimum Run length Codes, IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol.22, no 6, June 1974 , pp 826-835
2. R.B.Arps, "The Statistical Dependence of Run-Lengths in Printed Matter", Nachrichtentechnische Fachberichte, vol 40, pp 218-226, 1971
3. A.N.Netravali, F.W.Mounts and E.G.Bowen, "Ordering Techniques for Coding of Two-Tone Facsimile Pictures", The Bell System Technical Journal, Vol.55, pp 1539-1552, 1976
4. H.Gharavi, Conditional Variable-Length Coding for Gray-Level Pictures, AT&T Bell Lab.Technical Journal, Vol. 63, pp 249 -260, 1984

The general principle of encoding more common symbols in code of shorter length, and less common symbols in code of increased length has been in use since at least 1828 when Samuel Morse invented his alphabet. The Morsealphabet assigns longer code to less common symbols and shorter to more common ones, thus assign the shortest to e, then n, r, i, s, t. E Shannon formulated a mathematical theory of data compression using statistical correlations between spatially subsequent symbols and the encoding into code of length according to frequency 50 years ago.

Does JPEG Infringe Upon US-Patent 4698672?

First of all, despite the fact that the two algorithms are not truly identical they are similar enough to support the idea that JPEG does touch upon the claims made in the so called "Forgent-patent".

But it can be safely assumed that JPEG does not infringe on the patent as "prior art" can be proven.

The quoted literature does not describe the claims identically. But it does prove that even though the claims are differing in minor details from the ideas, methiods and results expressed within the articles the invention would have been obvious to an expert familiar with the ideas of the articles. They furthermore prove that the whole content of the invention was known to US scientists at the time of the registration of the patent.

This should result in a rejection of any patent related claims by Forgent Networks.

Editors Edited out key item in the post

[goombah99]

The editors changed my submission omitting key details. The pattent issue is not cut and dried. Nor is neccessarily absurd patetn abuse. The pattent has two inventors. The first inventor, Dr Chen, is the developer of the Fast Cosine Transform and its applications to compression. Thus the fact that this pattent is based on the Fast Cosine transform is proof that prior art did not exist. The second inventor was also on the JPEG commission that created the standard, so it's reasonableto guess this techinology was put in the standard. The trouble is Dr. Chen published the compression algorithm a year before the patent was filed. In the US, the rule of thumb is you have a year to patent an idea after disclosing it, but exceptions can be granted.

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.

Ulterior motives

[metoc]

I suspect M$ has ulterior motives. M$ has licensed stuff (i.e. LZW/GIF) before and has the cash, so why take the risk of losing in court and making a big payout.

So why else?

One. The patent is truly unenforceable, and M$ is confident it can prove it in court.

Two. They want to set a precedent. If you fail to enforce a patent, and it (accidently) ends up in a standard that becomes pervasive. You can't be johnny come lately and start enforce it. Obviously if people knew the patent existed, they wouldn't have used it in JPEG, or companies like M$ would have only used JPEG if they were willing to pay the royalties. Additionally Forgent is charging royalties as if nobody has a choice (which they don't have now). If they had enforced the patent and asked for royalties 10-15 years ago it would be in limited use and no where near as valuable.

Re:No, JPEG serves a purpose

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:If you live by the sword.

[Husgaard]

And here they are trying to have software patents enforced within Europe?

I think there are three reasons why Microsoft wants to have software patents legalized in Europe:

• They want it because they think it is their last possible way to fight their worst (and last remaining real) competitor: FOSS.
• They want their current (illegally issued, and thus currently illegal) patents to be legalized so they can use them for defensive purposes.
• They know that with about 50,000 illegally issued patents in Europe there will be a big patent war where everybody sues everybody in Europe if these illegal patents are legalized. This will give them (and the rest of the US software business) a big competitive advantage.

patent enforcement and serendipity

[goombah99]

As someone who has patents on laser radar methods that are about to expire. I can say I have no idea if people are using my techinuqes in their product or not. How in the hell would I be able to find out. I could not even afford to buy one of the many lidar instruments on the market and check. Even if I could, it would be hard to tell if it was or was not in use. It would be like trying to see if a certain patented math algorithm were encoded inside a computer chip in hardware. So I wait hoping that maybe at the last second I see a paper or something that mentions that someone is using the methods. But discovering your patent is being abused is serendiptous. Thus if you believe in patents then you need to put most of the burden on the people who use methods without checking for patents on them. This is of course an almost equally difficult task. The better solution might be higher thresholds for patent claims.

It's not funny in reality though.

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand the Score:Funny moderation of the parent because the image of two teams of lawyers heatedly debating something about which they are all entirely clueless definitely *IS* funny.

However, in reality, this is what is happening today in hundreds or thousands of subject areas, and the end result is nothing short of terrifying: a whole nation's progress is at the mercy of clueless talkers, instead of the do'ers of society.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that this can't be good for the country's future.