|
PubPat Challenges JPEG Patent |
|
Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 10:36 AM EST
|
The Public Patent Foundation has filed a request to challenge the JPEG patent on the basis of prior art. However, it also asks the US Patent Office to take notice of Compression Labs' "aggressive assertion" of its patent, which it says is causing substantial public harm. Here's the Request [PDF]. I asked Dan Ravicher, Executive Director of PubPat to please explain the chart, and here's his answer: Traditional patent analysis takes place through what are known as "claim charts", which are along the lines of the two column chart in my request. One column is for the claim at issue and the other column is for discussion of prior art. Claim charts can also have columns for definition of terms (you'll see I include the definition of terms, where relevant, in the column with the prior art discussion) and/or for infringement analysis. Claim charts are typically required in any litigation and are a common tool used by patent attorneys and judges to manage the analysis of patent claims. Separate rows are allocated for separate elements within a claim, of if a claim is simple enough, for the entire claim. So the point of it is to show that there was nothing original about the JPEG patent claims, and thus it should never have issued and should now be revoked. But notice the specificity required to challenge a patent with prior art. We can use this Request as an opportunity to learn the process, so when it comes time to search for prior art, should some rainy day arrive, we'll be aware of the subtleties involved in being successful. The patent system is so messed up at the moment that dealing with it requires a multi-pronged effort, and so patent pools, online databases, setting up entitites to buy up patents so Compression Labs-type companies can't get their hands on them, and challenging previously issued patents are all necessary parts of that effort. No single piece is enough, but they work together. The USPTO issues patents that are laughable, and somebody has to do something to clean up the mess. There is a new one: Patent
#6,960,975.
It's a patent for what appears to be warp-drive, for using
"quantized vortices of lattice ions projecting a
gravitomagnetic field that forms a spacetime curvature anomaly." Um, beam me up, Scotty. As you know, I think software and patents need to get a divorce, but in the meantime, other coping strategies are necessary. Go, PubPat.
Here's the meat of the press release:
**********************
PUBPAT CHALLENGES DATA COMPRESSION PATENT TO PROTECT JPEG FORMAT: Patent
Office Provided New Evidence Proving Patent Asserted Against
International Standard Is Invalid
NEW YORK -- November 16, 2005 -- The Public Patent Foundation ("PUBPAT") filed a formal request with the United States Patent and Trademark Office today to revoke Compression Labs Inc.'s patent on data compression that the company is widely asserting against an international standard for the electronic sharing of photo-quality images. In its filing, PUBPAT submitted previously unseen prior art showing that the patent, which was issued in 1987, was not new and, as such, should be revoked.
"CLI is using the '672 patent to harass anyone that implements the Joint
Photographic Experts Group ('JPEG') format," states PUBPAT's Request for
Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 4,698,672. "CLI's aggressive
assertion of the '672 patent is causing substantial public harm by
threatening this international standard on which the public relies."
Forgent Networks Inc. (Nasdaq:FORG) acquired Compression Labs in 1997
and began an aggressive campaign of asserting the '672 patent roughly a
year and a half ago, a decade after the patent was originally issued, by
filing infringement lawsuits against dozens of companies that offer the
public products or services relating to electronic image creation or
distribution. Despite having a fledgling software offering, the
assertion of patents is Forgent Networks' principal business activity.
"Forgent Networks is a classic example of the new and rapidly growing
trend of patent holders that do nothing more than sue people who make
products or services available to the public," said Dan Ravicher,
PUBPAT's Executive Director. "Unfortunately, the patent system allows
for such perverse behavior because it cares more about patent holders
than it does the public."
PUBPAT's Request for Ex Parte Reexamination of U.S. Patent No. 4,698,672 can be found at http://www.pubpat.org/Protecting.htm.
|
|
Authored by: Hiro Protagonist on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 10:50 AM EST |
Corrections go here Please.
---
I Grok... Therefore... I am.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 10:50 AM EST |
They purchased the patent in 1997. They waited how long to file a lawsuit. They
waited over 6 years.
What a waste of time!!
They must have a motto of Buy Now, Sue later!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Time a Wasted - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 02:39 PM EST
- Time a Wasted - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 12:50 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 11:06 AM EST |
This case should highlight the issue of acquisition of a company that claims to
not assert patents against a body (say, FOSS developers or Linux developers). If
the aquiring company aggressively asserts its patent rights, what recourse do
developers have??[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ilde on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 11:06 AM EST |
Don't forget to format links as apropriate. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- "Is Sony in violation of the LGPL? - Part II" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 11:37 AM EST
- Patent 6,960,975 - Authored by: ff5166 on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 11:42 AM EST
- OT: Today's User Friendly -- Darl & Sony & LGPL - Authored by: long_hair_smelly on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 01:04 PM EST
- Is the future of the Net as bleak as this? - Authored by: abraxus on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 01:06 PM EST
- Sony RK removal and the DCMA - Authored by: BC on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 01:21 PM EST
- More Sony BMG - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 02:03 PM EST
- Amazing, UK court gets it right... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 02:41 PM EST
- Alternatives - Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 03:18 PM EST
- Musicmatch - Maybe not DRM, but I think it's viral - Authored by: TerryC on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 03:18 PM EST
- Draconian EULAs - Authored by: tredman on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 05:30 PM EST
- The biggest obstacle - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 05:38 PM EST
- Use a second HD - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 06:40 PM EST
- Uh, no. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 09:31 PM EST
- Gimme a break - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 02:14 AM EST
- Gimme a break - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 04:33 PM EST
- "Mass. Governor Supports OpenDoc Policy" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 06:17 PM EST
- Significant New Product Announcement from Sun - and it's free! - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 06:25 PM EST
- A Clerical problem for MSFT's ODF stance - Authored by: DebianUser on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 08:46 PM EST
- Sun's contributions to Gnome Accessibility - Authored by: Ed L. on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 10:18 PM EST
- "Will Patent Threat Bust Real Estate Boom in Geospatial?" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 10:28 PM EST
- UN debut for $100 laptop for poor - Authored by: Naich on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 05:41 AM EST
- Thunderbirds makes $100 computer viable - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 08:19 AM EST
- Sony is just SO screwed! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 09:18 AM EST
- The stench of Sony, part 2 - Authored by: Jude on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 09:21 AM EST
- Sony hits a home run?? - Authored by: DebianUser on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 09:24 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 11:28 AM EST |
Isn't there some sort of restriction on situations like this? If the original
patent holder permitted people to use the technology freely for more than ten
years to create a defacto standard, then they should not be able to come back
and start demanding royalties! It is kind of like a drug dealer that gives you
the first few doses for free, then after you are addicted, starts to demand
payment.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 11:58 AM EST |
This is a question I don't think I've seen asked in any of the patent
revocations so far. Should this patent be successfully revoked, can any of the
parties who suffered as a result of it's issuance hold the USPTO liable for
negligence? If there is enough prior art to effect a revocation, shouldn't the
USPTO have been able to find it? And, if they aren't competent to find said
prior art, should they be allowed to issue patents in the first place?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Does the USPTO have any liability? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 12:30 PM EST
- Does the USPTO have any liability? - Authored by: John Hasler on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 01:07 PM EST
- "Only the government can prosecute criminal charges" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 01:18 PM EST
- "Only the government can prosecute criminal charges" - Authored by: John Hasler on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 01:25 PM EST
- Corporatism - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 01:32 PM EST
- Corporatism - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 04:10 PM EST
- Corporatism - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 05:03 PM EST
- Corporatism - Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 08:18 PM EST
- Corporatism - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 10:22 AM EST
- Corporatism - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 12:46 PM EST
- Corporatism - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 01:45 PM EST
- Corporatism - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 01:51 PM EST
- "Only the government can prosecute criminal charges" - Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 01:42 PM EST
- "Only the government can prosecute criminal charges" - Authored by: trandulff on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 01:54 PM EST
- "Only the government can prosecute and god can judge." - Authored by: webster on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 01:09 AM EST
- Does the USPTO have any liability? - Authored by: wood gnome on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 01:16 PM EST
- USPTO has no liability - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 01:35 PM EST
- Perhaps... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 02:25 PM EST
- USPTO has no liability - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 03:35 PM EST
- I hope not! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 11:05 AM EST
|
Authored by: Nick_UK on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 12:06 PM EST |
I think the GNU pages explain all why here:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/gif.
html>/a>
Nick [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- GNU and GIF's - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 08:49 AM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 12:21 PM EST |
That patent was supposed to be hidden because the info
came from the UFO aliens. The technology really does exist,
you know. The real problem is to prove that the
technology doesn't exist!
;/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Ask Esker - ;) - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 12:59 PM EST
- References Cited - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 01:05 PM EST
- Re #6960975 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 09:57 AM EST
- Re #6960975 - Authored by: cmc on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 03:37 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 12:22 PM EST |
First, let me say that I don't mean to disparage PubPat.org's work (I love
everything these guys do), but what does it say about the current system that
CLI has gone around suing dozens of large, well-funded enterprises, yet it
devolves to a non-profit organization to actually challenge the patent?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: jseigh on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 12:25 PM EST |
Even if they knock out this patent, there may be other patents like this. If
you browse around in the uspto's patent database you will realize there are an
unbelievable number of patents on prior art and vague patents which could be
used for patent extortion. Unless patent law is changed and you can go after
the patent trolls themselves, I don't think anything is going to help. For
instance, if the law allowed the holders of legitimate patents to seize the
licensing fees the patent trolls extorted for bogus patents. Kind of like RICCO
for patents. Especially with the new bankruptcy laws. The trolls could lose
their Mercedes. That would put real fear into them.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 01:15 PM EST |
If the patent was issued in 1987 that's approaching 20 years!! How long does a
patent apply? Is it being extended like copyright?
I thought the duration of a patent was short.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 02:40 PM EST |
For starters, I can suggest to go to www.uspto.gov/patft , "quick
search" and type "Compression Labs, Inc." in the assignee field.
All 12 Forgent patents come up immediately.
Patents 4,698,672 (in question) and 4,541,012 (submited as "invalidating
prior art" by PubPat's Executive Director Dan Ravicher ) are listed next to
each other...
To me this whole re-examination request looks ridiculous.
After 100 million $ Forgent managed to obtain
from Sony and other large companies over the course of several years ?
And nobody at those companies even looked at other
Forgent patents ?
Just give me a break...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 03:06 PM EST |
I do not understand one thing. They are asking to overturn '672 patent because
it is allegedly similar to a prior Tescher patent. But Tescher patent is owned
by the same company. Can't it just use Tescher patent to go after JPEG
developers even if '672 is overturned?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 03:13 PM EST |
Let us do away with patents completely. Radical? Well they may have been a good
idea when just a few people were inventing things but now, with millions
inventing, maybe they are not? Perhaps that will sort the wheat from the
chaff.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 10:09 PM EST |
So America can still grow bananas when industry collapses under the weight of
patent abuse.
---
TTFN[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 10:28 PM EST |
"quantized vortices of lattice ions projecting a gravitomagnetic field that
forms a spacetime curvature anomaly."
Actually, that's a very probable effect of superconductivity.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Dijital on Wednesday, November 16 2005 @ 11:19 PM EST |
The worst part to this and all the other annoying lawsuits is that you can bet
your last dime that there are likely a great many companies and corporations who
own patents that are having people examine them in depth to see if they too can
attempt to cash in on a patent infringement lawsuit. More and more lawsuits are
going to flow through the courts.
It's all so very sad. I prefer to refer to the entire patent lawsuit mess as
"the new way of doing business".
I predict that some day courts are going to be spending more time dealing with
"you owe us a ton of cash for violating our silly patent!" cases than
they will trying to remove criminals from the streets. Perhaps they are already?
---
- Armando -
"mv sco /dev/null"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 06:52 AM EST |
Would you reckon that a movie would be good for prior art on such a patent as
the warp drive?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, November 17 2005 @ 07:38 AM EST |
Go get Suse10.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|