Forgent to step up JPEG patent suits
'Forgent's '672 Patent case is the kind of litigation we like and we look forward to bringing significant value to the licensing and litigation process,' replied Steve Susman, partner with Susman Godfrey LLP." If Forgent continues to be successful, this one will hit the free software community for sure, sooner or later.
Posted Nov 2, 2005 16:59 UTC (Wed)
by mattdm (subscriber, #18)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Nov 2, 2005 17:34 UTC (Wed)
by allesfresser (guest, #216)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Nov 2, 2005 21:06 UTC (Wed)
by dmarti (subscriber, #11625)
[Link] (1 responses)
If you're interested in this one, watch Microsoft. They won't license this one, forcing Forgent to sue,
which is a good sign it's a weak patent. MSFT's post-SCOX strategy seems to be to fund strong patent attacks where possible, but not to annoy customers by handing loaded (legal) weapons to "patent trolls".
Posted Nov 3, 2005 14:37 UTC (Thu)
by eru (subscriber, #2753)
[Link]
One of the few times Microsoft does something I can applaud! Anyone know how this lawsuit is progressing? Too bad Groklaw isn't covering this one.
Posted Nov 3, 2005 11:21 UTC (Thu)
by wookey (guest, #5501)
[Link]
Forgent have already had tens of millions of dollars from companies like Sony and everyone else who makes digital cameras, and shaken down the Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) Chairman when they said Forgent's patent was invalid. It's a bit late for 'delaying the process'. Everyone has decided it's easier to pay than fight, except JPEG themselves but they have no funds to fight with. The committee Chairman at the time, Richard Clark, is extremely angry about the whole thing as the spec was explicitly created to be open and patent-free, and they carefully avoided a couple of patents they did know about at the time. He believes the system is fundamentally broken at the moment as it is simply not possible to make a standard which is free to use in this area due to undisclosed patents (the JPEG2000 spec could have serious problems in this regard).
Posted Nov 2, 2005 16:59 UTC (Wed)
by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)
[Link]
This is Debian bug #153467,
already 3 years and 107 days old, assigned to your truly who obviously
cannot do anything about, and not going to be closed soon apparently.
Posted Nov 2, 2005 19:15 UTC (Wed)
by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054)
[Link]
Posted Nov 2, 2005 19:58 UTC (Wed)
by RMetz (guest, #27939)
[Link] (2 responses)
"we look forward to bringing significant value to the licensing and litigation process." - Steve Susman
That doesn't make any sense! Sure, value is being brought to the licensing process, but nothing is being changed in the litigation process. The "litigation process" is a general term for how lawsuits are organized and procede. No value is being brought to that process.
I don't know why this bothers me, I shouldn't let it.
Posted Nov 2, 2005 21:25 UTC (Wed)
by bignose (subscriber, #40)
[Link]
Please investigate an excellent book on this topic; not about lawyers specifically, but about corporate public-speech language:
"Death Sentence", Don Watson, Random House ISBN: 1740512065
http://bookcrossing.com/journal/2576571
> I don't know why this bothers me, I shouldn't let it.
You *should* let it bother you, because it's no accident that it happens. Press releases are massaged beyond recognition so that they can contain something resembling the facts, and get people repeating the words, yet *kill debate* on the facts themselves.
The process actually make the reader more stupid, even if temporarily, because they have no handle on the information -- the statements have nothing coherent for the mind to hold onto.
This is more than just a sad statement on education; it actuvely defeats the process of debating what these organisations say to us. In that, it is a tangible harm.
Posted Nov 4, 2005 18:34 UTC (Fri)
by giraffedata (guest, #1954)
[Link]
Posted Nov 2, 2005 22:12 UTC (Wed)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (13 responses)
Also, whoever allowed pure mathematical algorithms to be patented (and if compression isn't one, I don't know what is), must have been on crack.
I have a distinct feeling that western societies, especially the U.S. and Australia (where yours truly lives) are not _mostly_ about money, but are trying to be _all_ about money. We have kids in primary school paying for copyright when they perform their little plays for parents. How much is enough?
Posted Nov 3, 2005 1:38 UTC (Thu)
by mikec (guest, #30884)
[Link] (12 responses)
1. remove the financial incentive from the USPTO to churn patents - right now it is a rather profitable operation whose treasury gets raided more often than the fridge - noone on "the hill" wants to take that source of cash away
2. Totally ban any corperate donation to political compaigns whether indirect or not... I hate this idea because I hate regulation, but our (US) government has run amok (generally speaking this is NOT a war protest) and you can trace most bad behavior to large corperate donors (mind you I am a fan of free markets and capitalism, but....) I hate it, but it is time to say limit donations and link them to an actual human - pick a reasonable amount and that is it - no loop holes, no exceptions, no PACs, no nothing... each man/woman/child can give $X and that is it...
Can't afford TV air time? Well, maybe that is not a bad thing given the crap that comes out of that process...
Posted Nov 3, 2005 17:21 UTC (Thu)
by cventers (guest, #31465)
[Link] (10 responses)
Posted Nov 3, 2005 19:00 UTC (Thu)
by amazingblair (guest, #2789)
[Link] (9 responses)
Phase 1: Company A has a Great Idea, starts research & development to make a workable product. (big $ loss)
Phase 2: Patents give Company A a temporary monopoly, right? So it can make Big Bucks for a while. (big $ gain, hopefully more than in #1)
Phase 3: Then the patent expires- Anybody can copy the idea, competition enters, prices fall & thus profits are squeezed*, the product is cheaply available to everybody. Right? (regular free market)
*Company A probably sells out at this point to finance its next big R&D venture.
Without patent protection, there isn't that Phase 2 period of Big Bucks. So how is the original company with the Great Idea going to pay for its R&D, without which there is no product? Short answer: they can't. And this the part I want to stress. For businesses, if they can't see a way to make money on a project, then they don't do the project. That is why they exist, after all -- to make money.
So don't propose "the immediate removal of patents" unless you're prepared to accept a virtual halt in high tech innovation, of the kind that requires expensive research and years of development. Patents are a good idea, if not abused.
[Now is the current patent system being abused? Yes indeedy! But we need to fix it rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater.]
-Amazing Blair
Posted Nov 3, 2005 19:32 UTC (Thu)
by bojan (subscriber, #14302)
[Link] (3 responses)
I think cventers should have said "immediate removal of _software_ patents in their entirety". Surely, one doesn't need a big $ loss to come up with a mathematical algorithm for compression. No expensive machinery, no factories, no labs etc. Just a bit of talent, some alone time and a few good discussions with fellow mathematicans...
Posted Nov 3, 2005 19:44 UTC (Thu)
by amazingblair (guest, #2789)
[Link]
-Blair
Posted Nov 4, 2005 8:33 UTC (Fri)
by eru (subscriber, #2753)
[Link]
Posted Nov 9, 2005 20:57 UTC (Wed)
by vmole (guest, #111)
[Link]
"Surely, one doesn't need a big $ loss to come up with a mathematical algorithm for compression."
Well, perhaps not dollar loss, but the Vorbis people worked on Ogg a long time to make it sound as good as it does. A good algorithm may well involve as much time and effort as a clever machine. For example, I don't know of many people who really thought the RSA patent was bad. Inconvenient, sure. But they were completely up front with it, and it's hard to deny that there was serious innovation.
But that doesn't actually have much to do with "software patents". Most software patents are of the form "doing X on a computer", where the only "innovation" is adding the phrase "on a computer". For example, the guy who
claims eBay is violating his "auctions on a computer" patent. Those have to go.
Posted Nov 4, 2005 13:39 UTC (Fri)
by eduperez (guest, #11232)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Nov 4, 2005 15:36 UTC (Fri)
by amazingblair (guest, #2789)
[Link] (1 responses)
Huh?
Posted Nov 4, 2005 20:31 UTC (Fri)
by cventers (guest, #31465)
[Link]
Posted Nov 4, 2005 18:53 UTC (Fri)
by oak (guest, #2786)
[Link] (1 responses)
If there's a patent in the field, usually that "innovation" won't be used in standards because of the problems it creates, so nobody profits. And sometimes patents are such a mine field that there will be no standard. I.e. everybody loses.
I think more money and time (and time is money!) is actually spent on negotiating all the legal deals than in "innovating" because of the patents.
For this to work, the patent should be really well focused, and I doubt that could work with SW/algorithm patents. If you've read any SW patents, you would also see that at least most of them are obfuscated to the point where you need several lawyers and a court case or two to decide what actually was patented.
I see patents mainly as a convenient way for lawyers to milk income from people who actually produce something. With patents, you'll need to hire one lawyer per a couple developers and *that* along with the patent applications / processes is really expensive. I doubt smaller firms can really afford this. They might get a couple patents, but they don't have patents covering everything needed. Then they fight it out it in court with other companies covering other aspects of the same SW until they come to their senses, or run out of money. (Think of Tivo...)
When they get to their senses, they join forces into a patent cartel to prevent others from entering the market with same amount of patents as either of them had. Goodbye free market.
Posted Nov 4, 2005 19:39 UTC (Fri)
by amazingblair (guest, #2789)
[Link]
Software patents present a different set of problems from other patents, and your summary of the litigious tumor that grows malignantly out of them these days is unpleasantly true.
Was it Shakespeare who said, "The first thing we do, letÂ’s kill all the lawyers..."?
-Amazing Blair
Posted Nov 3, 2005 18:26 UTC (Thu)
by amazingblair (guest, #2789)
[Link]
I strongly agree with your second point, that organizations should not be able to make political donations. People, individuals, should be the only ones who may send money to the political cause of their choice. That takes out not only Big Corporations but Big Unions as well. With a stroke, one avenue for corruption would be closed for good.
The proposed limit on how much a given individual may donate, however, is less convincing. I am undecided. But in general I lean toward personal liberty and fewer regulations. Let a person do with his money what he wills, so long as he breaks no laws.
-Amazing Blair
Looks like the patent in question (and, from what I remember when this came up three years ago, it really is in question!) expires October 27, 2006. (Would have been June 2004, but the rules changed midstream.) Anyway, given that this patent is very dubious, hopefully Forgent's actions can be held off for another year....Forgent to step up JPEG patent suits
Maybe if they do sue, one could just somehow drag out the process of discovery in the case long enough so it wouldn't matter anymore... hasn't someone done something like that before... ?Forgent to step up JPEG patent suits
The patent expiration is not the closing bell for lawsuits -- a patent holder can still get damages for infringement that happened before the patent expired. But, did you ever notice the weaker the case the more press releases?
Forgent to step up JPEG patent suits
If you're interested in this one, watch Microsoft. They won't license this one, forcing Forgent to sue,
Forgent to step up JPEG patent suits
Forgent to step up JPEG patent suits
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-945686.html
If Forgent continues to be successful, this one will hit the free software community for sure, sooner or later.
Forgent to step up JPEG patent suits
Forgent to step up JPEG patent suits
[W]e look forward to bringing significant value to the
licensing and litigation process[...]
Sigh... I'm sure they do. Nothing said about the innovation
or production
processes. :-(
Business-speak diverged from proper English long ago. I may be seeing things how I want to see them, so to check - has anyone else noticed that when businesspeople discuss lawsuits they are bringing against other companies or when lawyers are discussing the business of their corporate clients, the language they use becomes even more non-sensical? The buzzwords tend to get a little less out there but the actual English, the grammer and proper word usage, goes out the window.Forgent to step up JPEG patent suits
> Business-speak diverged from proper English long ago. I may be seeingLanguage rape
> things how I want to see them, so to check - has anyone else noticed that
> when businesspeople discuss lawsuits they are bringing against other
> companies or when lawyers are discussing the business of their corporate
> clients, the language they use becomes even more non-sensical?
I think he just misspoke. He meant Forgent's licensing and litigation business. Forgent has an identified sub-business (maybe even a formal division) of licensing and litigation. Susman is just saying he expects to bring value to that division. It was probably pretty clear in context.
The licensing and litigation process is what the licensing and litigation business unit executes.
Forgent to step up JPEG patent suits
They should really do that with patents, just like they are doing it with trademarks. Otherwise, these "patent pirates" come out of the woodwork at a very late stage of the game and (usually successfully) extort money from people that are actually _doing_ something about progress.Use it or lose it
There are 2 things (at least in the US) that would help a great deal:Use it or lose it
Personally, I'd be happy with #2, and I'd like to propose that we replace Use it or lose it
#1 with the immediate removal of patents in their entirety. Seriously...
does anyone have any examples of patents doing anyone except large greedy
corporations any kind of good in the last, oh, say, 10 years? How about
doing the consumer any good?
Are you nuts?Get rid of Patents?!?
> Phase 1: Company A has a Great Idea, starts research & development to make a workable product. (big $ loss)Get rid of Patents?!?
Of course, even "a bit of talent" costs something... ;-)Get rid of Patents?!?
Point taken.
Besides almost all software techniques in common use were developed
without the supposed benefit of patents, since software
patents were practically nonexistent until the late 1980's,
even in the USA. So we have existence proof that advancement
of software technologies does not require patents.
Get rid of Patents?!?
Get rid of Patents?!?
Oh, now I see; so that is why bulbs, televisions, telephones, combustion engines, ... are all of them well covered under so many patents: none of them would exist without patents.Get rid of Patents?!?
Get rid of Patents?!?
The point is that the argument that people will just stop innovating Get rid of Patents?!?
without the presence of a patent system is, well, patently false.
Patents were intended to protect small inventors from large corporations;
yet, a large company that wants to produce something a small inventor
patented can often virtually ignore the patent, knowing that their
million dollar law firms will defend them.
In any case, the usefulness of the patent system has shifted from the
small inventor to the large corporation, who can afford to file for
hundreds of nonsense patents each year. Then, simply by assigning their
million dollar law firm, well, a million dollar budget, they can mow down
competition (and small inventors) who don't have the million dollar law
firm on their side.
The patent system / flawed concept that you can actually 'own' an *idea*
versus 'owning' a work has a lot to do with why we as a nation and a
people are basically owned by these large powerhouses in the first place.
There are several billion people on this planet. Do you really advocate a
system that allows a person or faceless entity on one side of the planet
to, just by spending what to them is pocket change, prevent anyone else
on that huge planet that might have the same or a similar idea from ever
doing anything with it for a long time? If so, my friend, I'm afraid I'll
just have to call you crazy.
Isn't the gain really exception more than rule, at least in the software?Get rid of Patents?!?
You may well be right.Get rid of Patents?!?
Mike,Individual Citizens as Political Donors