Patent Office Agrees To Review JPEG Patents, Just As Another Company Pays Up
from the took-'em-long-enough dept
Among the companies that demonstrate just how much our patent system does not encourage innovation, Forgent may be near the top of the list. The patent in question had absolutely nothing to do with the eventual creation of JPEG image compression, and Forgent found this patent collecting dust in the corner after purchasing assets from another company. They made a bit of a stretch and said it covered JPEG compression and started suing everyone. Back in November, though, we noted that a group had dug up some prior art which they hoped would invalidate the patent. That didn't stop Forgent, of course, who quickly pressured Yahoo! into licensing the patent. This week, they got JASC to settle a lawsuit over the patent -- but that may have been a bit premature. Based on that prior art submission from last November, the USPTO has now agreed to reconsider the patent. Obviously, there's a lengthy process to go through before any conclusion is made -- but this situation demonstrates all of the problems with the patent system in one simple case study. You have a patent that obviously had nothing to do with the actual innovation, but was simply applied retroactively as a "lottery ticket" to take money from those who actually did innovate. You have companies who actually are innovating, who are feeling pressured to pay up a license fee, just to avoid the pain of litigation. You have prior art that has to be dug up by others, rather than the patent examiners. You have a patent review process that will take years to conclude one way or the other, during which, money will keep flowing away from actual innovators to a company that has done nothing to help drive innovation (and to lawyers). So, for all the companies who paid up, can they get their money back if the patent is found invalid? Can they sue the patent office for causing all of these problems for fraudulently granting a bogus patent?
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
Someone Ought to
If the patent office invalidates a patent they should be held liable for any damages it causes the company, but even then the taxpayers loose out since the patent office is a goverment organization. What would be better is to put into law stipulations that if a company has nothing to do with a product (software or hardware) development and merely holds a pantent on an idea, and that seems like what most of these are, that the entity which brought the product to market cannot be held liable for patent infringments unless the original patenting entity is currently, or has actually brought/or is in the process of brining that "product" to market.
The spirit of this would be to prevent people from patenting ideas and sitting on the patent until someone else does the hard work of bringing the idea to fruition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone Ought to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Someone Ought to
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If pigs could fly...
I believe the patent system is just out of date, it runs on old laws that have eventually gone out dated by those working the loop holes, something seriously needs to be done about it and the loop holes plug, but as stated those who can will probably never want to, as there the ones that earn from the current system.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the Alternative?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What's the Alternative?
Patents are supposed to be for inventions. Not maths. Not software. Not business methods. Stop issuing patents on things that were always (and by any sane reading of the law, still are) supposed to be unpatentable. And immediately cancel all existing 'software' patents as wrongfully issued. What the patent office giveth, the patent office can taketh away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
Ideas, methods, formulas, and daydreams should never be patentable, only actual tangible goods.
Copyright law and trade secret legislation covers the source code and real work that goes into software. If someone comes along who can do it better, cheaper and faster they should be allowed to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
in this case
I think the law should be changed to prevent this kind of sudden change of heart, many years after the fact, to demand licensing on expensive terms of widely used technologies. In some cases, the patent holders might not have been aware of ongoing infringement but this is certainly not one of them. Also, lawmakers need to take into account the speculative nature of many patent holdings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: in this case
There are a limited number of recognised 'open standards bodies' - Have the patent office agree on a list they recognise, and update it as appropriate.
Any technology that becomes part of a registered and recognised standard is automatically patent-free, by the following legal theory.. if the patent holder themselves contributed it they must knowingly waive any patent rights. If anyone else held patent rights and didn't speak up and assert their rights when the standard was being openly discussed, they forfeit the right to assert the patent(s) completely.
But still, a better solution would be for the patent office to recognise that patent law quite explicitly says SOFTWARE (as such) CAN'T BE PATENTED and stop issuing or recognising illegal patents!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If there was a special place in Hell for people li
[ link to this | view in chronology ]