Patent Office Has Problems With Infamous JPEG Patent
from the oh,-look-at-that dept
One of the more infamous patent problem situations has been Forgent's claim with a patent that they say covers JPEG image compression. This was a perfect example of a company that clearly had done nothing to help bring about JPEG image compression. The company had found a random patent they had bought from another company, and then retroactively figured it applied to JPEGs. Even the company admits that this patent was a lucky "lottery ticket" to riches -- which is not what the patent system is supposed to encourage at all. Still that didn't stop them from going around suing companies and pressuring others to pay for a license they probably didn't need. Last year, a group found some prior art on the patent, and convinced the USPTO to review it. Today comes the news that the patent office has done an initial rejection of some of the broad claims at the heart of the patent. Forgent still gets the chance to respond, and this process is far from over. However, the interesting part is that the examiners believe the original patent filers knew of the specific prior art, and did not disclose it to the USPTO as required. It's yet another argument for having a better system for helping the USPTO understand the prior art and obviousness of a patent before the patent has been issued and can be used to divert money from actual research and innovation to legal fights.
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
hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents are not Lucky Lottery Tickets, and shouldn't be seen as such. Once upon a time, Patents allowed individuals and small businesses to stand on their two feet and take on companies for stealing their ideas. Now, companies are in the business of amassing large patent portfolios with their sole purpose of suing individuals, and smaller companies, the system is turned upside down from what I believe was it's original intent.
Granted, Original art is an important piece to the entire patent process... But to own an idea that would eventually be invented anyway for the sole purpose of suing, is not what I believe congress had in mind when they created the USPTO.
Just a thought, but maybe included in the application for a patent, the USPTO should take into consideration the person/company's ability to implement said idea.
Companies like IBM who dedicate an entire business unit, or touting having a huge IP portfolio should probably do something with it, or pass the IP off to those who can actually make use of the IP.
http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/patents/portfolio.shtml
http://att.sbc.com/gen/corporate-ci tizenship?pid=5882&phase=check
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who Says I Had to Invent It?
If I invent something, and sell the patent to someone, then why should they be faulted for not having been the ones to invent the product?
The same goes if someone else did all the hard work, and I bought the patent from them. Why does that make me a bad guy?
Why would Forgent be bad guys for buying a patent from the people that *did* invent the product?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who Says I Had to Invent It?
So the complaint is that the patent was bought, but that it was applied broadly retroactively on those who actually did innovate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who Says I Had to Invent It?
That may be true, but in my opinion, the tone of the article is "Oh geez, here's another evil company trying to make money off an invention they had nothing to do with."
And of course it doesn't matter if they had anything to do with it or not, they own the patent, and they bought the patent free and clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who Says I Had to Invent It?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah...
-> Some interesting news about what M$ is doing ovet the whole JPEG thing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ah the smell of a non problem...
If prior art exists, it exists, and should be brought to the forefront by interested parties. Sorry Mike we don't need a Blue Ribbon panel to investigate every patent application that is filed. If the patent was obtained based on art that was withheld by the applicant the patent can be invalidated. I hope Forgent kept their receipt...
Long before any meaningful resources can be "extorted" the prospective strength of a patent can be easily determined - like this situation proves.
Note to chicken little, er I mean Mike: the sky is NOT falling...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah the smell of a non problem...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah the smell of a non problem...
Well oiled machined, huh?
I'm sure the companies that have paid over $100 million over the past 19 years since the patent was first granted feel that the system is working just great for them, don't they?
That's $100 million that could have gone to research, but instead went into the pockets of a company that did nothing actually related to the industry and hold a patent that quite likely will be shown to be invalid.
Well-oiled? I don't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ah the smell of a non problem...
NTP "extorted" $612 Million from RIM, with the knowing assistance of the courts, even as the Patent office was invalidating the patents. Maybe you don't consider 612 million dollars to be meaningful resources?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm with Sean - so what?
The answer is that this site is hostile to any kind of patents or bold assertions of property rights. They think anyone who makes a product should have the right to sell it regardless of whether it infringes a patent or not. Mike doesn't believe that patents should confer an exclusive right, yet this is often the heart of patent protection.
These guys are a bunch of "silly" Marxist deconstructionists masquerading as people who might know something. The so-called economic arguments they make, make little or no sense when you pick them apart.
The best economic argument supporting patent grants arise from Nash equilibrium analysis among the competitors (probably too complex for Mike).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm with Sean - so what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I'm with Sean - so what?
Umm.. because the people that *did* do all the work sold them the patent, free and clear.
I can understand being angry when someone comes along and patents something like right-clicking... something people have been using forever, and some company realizes that no one ever patented the idea, so they patent it and get rich. They had nothing to do with the invention, or idea. That's messed up.
But when I invent something and sell the patent to someone else, where is the problem in that? And I don't see how it matters if the person had the patent for 10 years, and just now decided to dust it off and start using it, after the product became popular. They have the patent, it's their right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm with Sean - so what?
But that's just the thing. The people who sold them the patent, *didn't* do anything related to JPEGs at all. To go back to that argument makes no sense.
You're confusing the two issues. One is whether or not patents can be sold. I have no problem with that whatsoever. Sell them all you want.
The other is whether or not this patent actually had anything to do with the innovation at hand -- and even the patent owners admit that it did not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: I'm with Sean - so what?
But you're wrong that the selling company did anything to promote JPEG in any way. Forgent took a patent that they bought, not knowing that it could apply to JPEG, and kept it. Through some reasoning they went back and examined it and discoverd it could apply to the existing JPEG technology, hence the "Lottery Ticket" reference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm with Sean - so what?
I personally don't see how that matters. It's my right as a patent holder to enforce, or not enforce the patent. If I want to wait 10 years to enforce the patent, after the invention has "blown up", and gained world-wide popularity, that's certainly within my rights.
If other people want to make the product popular while I hold the patent, that's not my problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm with Sean - so what?
It certainly is a problem if the point of the patent system is to promote the development of new and innovative products (which is what the system is supposed to do). In the situation you've described the opposite happens. People don't develop because someone else is sitting on the patent. It makes actual innovation *less* desirable.
So, you might not have a problem with it, but it does go against the purpose of the patent system -- and that's a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm with Sean - so what?
I also agree that the patent they hold probably doesn't cover the technology they claim it does, but I don't think we should be on a witch hunt for everyone who wants to make money using the patents they own. That is also the reason for patents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: I'm with Sean - so what?
Actually, no, it's not within your rights to do so. You cannot choose not to enforce a patent only to wait for it to become embedded in the system so you can collect even more. There are clauses specifically against those actions in the patent system already..it's fucked but not THAT fucked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Poor guy who invented the wheel
People are always taking credit for inventing rather than innovating. We are lucky that this system did not exist when people started making and using tools.
I can just see the cavemen lawyers come along with a grunt to let someone know that they may not use a rock to break open a nut, because their client thought of it first.
Maybe there are no inventors, only innovators.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can fix stupid
Anyway if 100 million companies paid $1 each to settle, what's wrong with that? It would have cost the patentee $2 each to sue them. You carry on as if suing on a patent is costless - you moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We need a better system
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need a better system
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We need a better system
The company I work for wondered if something I've
designed would be patentable.
What I found was interesting. There are patents
issued within the last four years for things that
were clearly prior art even in the 1970's. I printed
some of them we all had a good laugh.
But it's not funny. The system is broken. Again
I call for some sort of peer review to fix one of the
more serious faults.
It's just too easy to get a patent today. Defending
it may be another matter. So the system degenerates
until protecting whoever has the most money becomes
its function.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well Oiled Machine?
Woah. Remind me never to get on one of your rockets. You obviously have no concept of equality -- a very fundamental principle in physics and mathematics.
The Patent system IS BROKEN. And this is GREAT evidence in favor of that thesis. The patent should have never been granted, and it should have been easily invalidated years ago. The USPTO doesn't have the capability to be a watchdog on this kind of abuse, and never will. The whole system needs a massive overhaul.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On Nash Equilibria and elementary Market Economics
Unwarranted ad hominem attacks on Mike aside (a sure sign of a weak mind), this post reveals just how little Rocket Scientist knows about the free market.
And here's what he's missing: free markets don't work in the presence of monopolies. Monopolies, in fact, are the protagonists of free markets. Monopoly power is identical to Marxist centrally planned power. When one entity has monopoly power, they can set prices arbitrarily, set production levels arbitrarily, allocate resources arbitrarily, etc. And no matter how smart that entity is, it can't respond to changing market forces (supply and demand) as quickly as the free market can. It is inherently less efficient. Monopolies decrease overall wealth, consolidate existing wealth into the hands of the few, and punish consumers with less choice, higher prices, and poor service.
Patents are a government regulated monopoly power. They are handed out by a government beauracrat. They are inefficient, and communistic.
So from all this, we can clearly see that Rocket Scientist is a closet lover of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and all the rest. He doesn't want markets that compete, he wants monopoly power.
As for nash equilibria -- he probably doesn't even know what that is. It certainly doesn't apply to the patent system, which is a system that is easily gamed by individual players (such as forgent). There is no nash equilibria in our patent system, no disincentives for cheating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re: Who Says I Had to Invent It?
The problem comes when the patent is used for money-making lawsuits. See also THE SCO GROUP.
It's patently (heh) ludicrous for the ownership of a patent to be referred to as a lucky lottery ticket, even in jest. Now, if they'd called it a Lucky License to Sue ... well, at least they'd have been talking straight.
I'm sure it's legally OK to do this. I'm saying that it's morally reprehensible, and that the law has major problems.
But you knew that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What Evidence is there on Prior Knowlege
_________________________________________
What specific evidence is there that there was Prior Knowlege on the part of Compression Labs which obtained the patent in 1986?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What Evidence is there on Prior Knowlege
This is the referenced page with all the info. All it states is that PUBPAT, the company who discovered and submitted the prior art, says Compression Labs (the original applicant for the patent) had the prior art but with held that information when submitting the patent application.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What you ought to do is...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Somewhere among the patents, is a patent that some fool got for how a person sits in a swing and actually swings in the thing. Something to do with the side to side swinging motion. That tells you just how bad Patents have gotten out of control. The Patent office is too quick to issue a patent without first doing some research, and using some good old fashion common sense. Next is the owner of the patent going after least expecting individuals and company's for nothing else but that crazy Patent that either sounds lame, or everyone is guilty of abusing it for years and years. Which amounts to total BS. If your a company, you know damn well what Patents you own the rights too. If you want to protect them so bad, then you should have so many months to protect your patent. If you don't the patent should be voided, or at least the lawsuits should be thrown out. The is total abuse of a Patent system. Plain and simple. Next they should do is if you do sue, the amount you can collect stops when the first lawsuit is issued. make it public, then small business can remove the crap Patent from their works, and save their butts. After all most of the patent owners go after the little guys, they are more prone to pay than to fight it. Which is what these lawsuits are all about. No one can tell me otherwise I don't care what the rule book says. Read the papers, watch the news. Who has a patent that is twenty or so years old, then as soon as the patent is doing so good along comes someone claiming ownership and crying lawsuit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent the next level of stupidity
I'm going to get you, TechDirt. I'm going to expose your patent propoganda if it's the last thing I do!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent the next level of stupidity
But that assumption goes straight to the heart of the problem. There is no indication that the Forgent patent had any causal connection with the development of the jpeg standard. Heck, it appears that the developers of jpeg did not know of the Forgent patent and Forgent (and the earlier owers of the patent) did not know that there might be some connection between their patent and the jpeg standard. In fact, it appears thatall they have in common is that they both use a Fourier transform to approximate data - not exactly a new idea.
The patent system is only constitutional so long as it actually, on balance, promotes the useful arts. No one should get a patent for an idea that any competent engineering team would have developed in a short period of time once the problem was posed to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: Patent Office Has Problems With Infamous JPEG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: Patent Office Has Problems With Infamous J
Because the courts are the problem. This argument was made by RIM in the NTP litigation and the Judge toild them they were wasting his time even making the argument. There should be a good housecleaning on the Judges who hear patent cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent = +innovation
You know, I've been up for 3 days straight, and I'm extremely hungry, yet my Think still runs laps around your Think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent = +innovation
That assumes that innovation is entirely separate from everything else that has come before or will come after, which is simply false.
Microsoft is releasing an alternative to JPEG: the photo member of the Windows Media family. Perhaps they grew tired of the JPEG license fees. Now they've created a better compression system than what JPEG offers
Considering that the Forgent patent is extremely broad, it's quite likely they'll consider Microsoft to be infringing as well... highlighting why your solution is anything but.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]