Patent Troll Wins Again
from the open-that-cash-register dept
Just last month, we wrote about the patent challenge to Forgent's patent that they believe covers JPEG compression. Remember, this is a company that had this random patent sitting around for many years, that they did absolutely nothing with. It was only a few years ago (just as the patent was getting close to expiring) that they realized that the patent might cover JPEG image compression. Realize that this company had absolutely nothing to do with the success of JPEGs, and actual JPEG technology was developed entirely without using these patents. Forgent just happened to notice that they had some patent no one really had noticed that sort of covered the same stuff -- and they saw it as a cash register. So far, it's worked. It's often such a pain to fight these patent lawsuits that it's easier to just pay the troll to leave them alone. That appears to be what's happening now with Yahoo, who has agreed to pay Forgent, adding to the over $100 million the company has squeezed out of this patent. So how does this encourage innovation? It's rewarding a company that had nothing to do with the technology creation or its ongoing success. Instead, even the company admits it's a "lottery ticket." It's hard to see how this encourages anything other than patent hoarding.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
If you personally paid for all that R&D and then had it stolen by just someone copying - wouldn't you want to have patent protection? Because companies would not spend tons on R&D without IP protection your statements seem hypocritical...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No Subject Given
Let's suppose a brilliant systems software engineer uses a few visionary tricks to pull together some concepts in software (R&D) - and pays to get the patent. Then a big company, much later on, merely copies it and literally makes billions of dollars, where they would not have. The guy who thought of it is left with nothing but maybe has the better thought-genes. The big bully with all the bucks just gets that much richer...
First off... how did the big company find out about it in the first place? Was the brilliant engineer successful in building a product and bringing it to market?
If you personally paid for all that R&D and then had it stolen by just someone copying - wouldn't you want to have patent protection? Because companies would not spend tons on R&D without IP protection your statements seem hypocritical...
The idea that companies wouldn't spend on R&D without patent protection is a myth. Just look at history. Not even very far back history. In Italy, for example, the patent system didn't cover pharmaceuticals until the late 70s. Up until then, Italy had a thriving pharmaceutical industry, with plenty of new drugs being introduced. It was the fifth largest pharma industry in the world, and it worked because the firms kept investing in R&D and new products to stay ahead of the competition.
Then what happened? In 1978 pharma patents came to Italy and the industry practically disappeared, because the incentive was gone to invest in new drugs.
So, stop believing the myth and start looking at the reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Uhm what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Uhm what?
I was under the impression that it was illegal to patent or copyright any naturally occurring or mathematical algorithm... How is this working? The LZ compression scheme used in GIFs "requires a license" which is also illegal.
It is legal, however, to patent a process and an application. So while one would not be able to patent an algorithm, one could (and did) patent the process of applying that alogorithm to computer stored graphical files.
It should also be noted that the GIF patent has now expired, so anyone can use it without fear of anyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Other than that, great point!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Your analogy doesn't hold for other reasons, as well. Patents are meant to give people a reason to innovate. This is hardly innovation at work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Most of Microsoft IP was stolen. If you steal IP, do you really own it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
Hurray for red herrings and bad analogies. As we've pointed out before, there's a huge difference between owning a tangible thing and an "idea." Not only that, but owning a house means managing the continue market for that house. That's not what's happening here. Forgent has nothing to do with the market for JPEGs. They just suddenly claimed they owned it.
This would be more like you owning a house and renting it out for a while, and then someone else suddenly showing up and saying that they have some other ownership rights for the land, and that you need to pay them a fee to keep renting it out -- even though they don't actually own the house or the land.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
If someone pantented renting out a house and then told you that you couldn't rent your house. That would be anagelous to the situation with software patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents in the house
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
There is no threat of switching off government blackberrys because they will be exempt from any court order that shuts down the Blackberry network. If there was a real threat, then it is concievable that the government would get involved, something NTP and other patent trolls do not want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]